robot_relax

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description discloses the core behavior: converting EquivalentClasses to SubClassOf axioms, making the ontology less restrictive while preserving the subclass hierarchy. With no annotations, this provides sufficient transparency about what the tool does, though it could mention side effects or requirements.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is three sentences, with the first sentence directly stating the action, the second explaining the transformation, and the third providing pipeline context. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Despite having an output schema, the description fails to explain key parameters or provide usage examples. Given the complexity (14 parameters, 0 required, 0% coverage), the description is incomplete for successful invocation, as it omits parameter semantics entirely.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The description does not explain any of the 14 parameters (0% schema coverage). It adds no meaning beyond the input schema, leaving agents without guidance on what parameters like 'input', 'output', or 'exclude_named_classes' do.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's action ('relax equivalence axioms into weaker subclass axioms') and specifies the transformation (EquivalentClasses to SubClassOf). It distinguishes itself from siblings by mentioning its role in a pipeline before reduce.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It explicitly describes when to use the tool ('before reduce') and its typical pipeline position ('reason → relax → reduce'). However, it does not provide explicit when-not-to-use scenarios or compare directly to all siblings, which would elevate it to a 5.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.