robot_verify

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that ROBOT exits with a non-zero code when violations are found (controllable via fail_on_violation), adding value beyond the schema. However, it does not describe other behavioral aspects like output format, file creation (output_dir), or side effects (e.g., whether it modifies the ontology).

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 concise with two sentences and no redundant information. However, it could be restructured to front-load the most critical details (e.g., fact that it checks an ontology, non-zero exit). The current structure is acceptable but not optimized for quick scanning.

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?

Given the complexity (13 parameters, no schema descriptions, no annotations, and an output schema not described), the description is incomplete. It fails to explain the return value, the role of most parameters, or prerequisites (e.g., an ontology must be provided via input or working_directory).

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%, so the description must compensate. It only explains two parameters (queries and fail_on_violation) out of 13. Critical parameters like input, output_dir, working_directory, prefixes, verbose, strict, etc., are left undocumented, leaving the Agent with insufficient 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 clearly states the tool checks an ontology for rule violations using SPARQL SELECT queries, which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like robot_query (which runs arbitrary queries) and robot_validate_profile (which uses OWL reasoning) by focusing on SPARQL SELECT-based violation detection and non-zero exit on findings.

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?

The description explains that query files should contain SPARQL SELECT and that results indicate violations, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., robot_query or robot_validate_profile). Usage context is implied but not formally contrasted with siblings.

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