ontology_lint

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only cryptically states that 'each FAIL carries its repair,' suggesting the tool outputs failures with repair instructions, but it does not explain side effects, permissions, or what 'collisions,' 'code resolution,' and 'drift' concretely mean. This is insufficient for a tool with zero annotation support.

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 sentence, making it very concise with no unnecessary words. However, its cryptic and metaphorical phrasing means it is not well-structured for immediate comprehension; it is under-specified rather than efficiently clear.

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 vague to understand what the tool actually does or how it fits into a workflow. It does not explain what inputs it operates on, what 'gate' implies, or how the listed concepts (collisions, resolution, drift) are detected or repaired. The description is incomplete for a tool with this level of complexity.

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 has zero parameters, so the baseline score is 4. The description does not need to explain parameters, and it adds no param-related information, which is acceptable given there are none.

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 calls the tool 'The gate' and references collisions, code resolution, and drift, which hints at a validation or linting role. However, it lacks a specific verb like 'checks' or 'validates', and the metaphor makes the exact operation ambiguous. It gives some sense of purpose but remains vague.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools such as ontology_check, ontology_words, or ontology_add. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or scenarios where this tool is preferred, leaving the agent without direction on selection.

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