ontology_check

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the transparency burden. It implies a read-only status check without side effects, but does not explicitly state safety, define the outcomes (free/defined/ruled on), or mention error conditions. It provides basic behavioral context but not rich detail.

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, front-loaded sentence that delivers the core purpose and usage directive without wasted words. It is highly concise and well-structured.

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 one-parameter check tool with an output schema, the description provides adequate context: what it checks, when to run it, and the possible outcomes. It lacks definitions of 'ruled on' and explicit read-only assurance, but given the tool's simplicity and existing output schema, it is nearly complete.

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 coverage is 0% and the description only indirectly references the parameter via 'this name'. It does not explicitly explain the parameter format, constraints, or semantics beyond implying it is the name to check. The possible statuses add minimal context, but the description fails to fully compensate for the lack of 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 uses a clear question form to indicate the tool checks whether a name is free, defined, or ruled on. It implies a check action and the resource (name in ontology), distinguishing it from siblings like ontology_add (adding) and ontology_lint (linting). Missing an explicit verb like 'checks' but still understandable.

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?

'Run BEFORE naming anything' explicitly tells when to use the tool, establishing it as a prerequisite check. It does not mention alternatives or exclusions, but the timing guidance is clear and context-rich.

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