sparql_query

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions read-only and allowed SPARQL forms, but omits crucial behavioral details such as error handling, rate limits, output structure, and any security constraints. For a raw query tool with zero annotation support, this is inadequate.

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 two sentences with no fluff. It front-loads the core function and then provides a usage cue. Every word serves a purpose.

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 is too sparse for a tool intended for complex SPARQL. It lacks practical guidance on constructing valid queries, handling results, or anticipated limitations. An agent would need additional documentation to use this reliably.

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 schema has 0% description coverage for the 'query' parameter. While the description adds that the query must be SPARQL (SELECT/ASK/CONSTRUCT/DESCRIBE), it offers no syntax examples, length limits, or guidance on formatting. The description only partially compensates for the missing schema documentation.

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 states a specific verb ('executes'), a clear resource (SPARQL), and explicit constraints (read-only, supported query forms). It also notes it's for 'complex relational queries', which distinguishes it from sibling tools that likely handle simpler lookups.

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 provides context by indicating the tool is for complex relational queries, implying when to use it. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, leaving some ambiguity.

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