describe_resource

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the output format (Turtle, human-readable summary) and scope (subject and object). However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, and there's no mention of performance implications or repository selection requirements. It provides basic transparency but not comprehensive behavioral context.

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 a single, focused sentence that states the purpose and output format without unnecessary detail. It is front-loaded with the primary action and adds one key detail about the return type. 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?

For a simple read-only tool with only one required parameter and full schema coverage, the description provides adequate context: what it does and what it returns. It lacks some contextual details like when to choose this over SPARQL construct, but given the simple interface and schema descriptions, it is reasonably complete. No output schema exists, so the description's mention of Turtle format and summary helps set expectations.

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 input schema already provides descriptions for all three parameters, giving 100% coverage. The description adds slight semantic value by clarifying that 'all triples' includes both subject and object directions, which aligns with the include_incoming parameter. However, it does not elaborate on repository_id or include_incoming beyond the schema, so the schema carries most of the burden.

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 uses a specific verb 'Get all triples' and clearly identifies the resource by IRI. It distinguishes from sibling query tools by focusing on a single resource and specifying both subject and object direction. The output format is stated, leaving no ambiguity.

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 implies a clear use case: retrieving all triples for a known resource. However, it does not explicitly reference alternative tools like sparql_construct or state when NOT to use this tool, so it lacks explicit exclusion guidance. The context signals show many sibling tools, but the description alone does not position this tool among them.

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