robot_report

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

With no annotations, the description bears full behavioral burden. It discloses the core action (running QC queries and generating reports) and key options (profile, fail_on), but omits side effects, resource implications, or error behaviors.

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 short and front-loaded with the purpose. It uses two sentences, both informative, with no redundancy. Could slightly benefit from listing key parameters but remains efficient.

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 lacks coverage for 16 out of 18 parameters. The complexity of the tool (many options) demands more detail for agents to invoke it correctly without trial and error.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description only explains two parameters (profile and fail_on) out of 18. Most parameters (e.g., input, output, limit, base_iri) remain entirely unexplained, leaving the agent with minimal semantic guidance.

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 explicitly states the tool runs QC SPARQL checks and generates a violation report with severity levels (ERROR, WARN, INFO) and a fail_on threshold. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like robot_query or robot_validate_profile.

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 explains when to use the tool (for QC checks with customizable profiles) and mentions the fail_on parameter to set exit threshold. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare with alternatives like validate_profile.

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