describe_generator

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It adds useful detail about option format ('CLI-style option names without leading dashes') and 'describe' implies a read-only operation, but it does not explain what output the tool returns or whether unsupported names produce errors. This is adequate for a simple lookup tool but not rich.

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?

Two concise sentences with no filler. The core purpose is stated first, and the additional option-format nuance is included without bloat. Every sentence contributes useful information.

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?

This is a simple tool with one enum-constrained parameter and no output schema, so the description is nearly complete. It covers the tool's purpose and the key behavioral detail about option formatting. It could mention that list_generators is the way to enumerate supported generators, but that is a minor omission.

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 does not explicitly explain that 'name' selects the generator, though 'Describe one supported LinkML generator' implies it. The enum values (shacl, owl, doc) are self-explanatory, but the description does not add meaning beyond the schema for the parameter itself.

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 ('Describe') and resource ('one supported LinkML generator'), and clarifies it covers the option format accepted by run_generator. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_generators (which enumerates) and run_generator (which executes).

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 this tool should be used to inspect a specific generator or learn its option format before invoking run_generator. It does not explicitly mention when to use list_generators instead, but the phrase 'one supported generator' plus sibling context makes the usage scenario reasonably clear.

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