Poietic metamodel

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 (markdown), the optional parameter behavior, and the read-only exploration purpose via 'Describe' and 'schema-discovery path'. This is sufficient transparency for a query-like tool, though it does not explicitly state that no changes are made.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: first states purpose and content, second explains optional parameter usage with examples, third explains why an agent would call this tool. No redundancy or filler.

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 one optional parameter and no output schema, the description fully covers what the tool does, how to invoke it, what output to expect, and when to use it. Nothing critical is missing.

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 100%, so the schema already documents the single optional 'type' parameter. The description adds useful examples and restates the omit-for-all behavior, but does not add meaning beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'Describe' with the Poietic metamodel as the resource, and details the content (object types, traits, attributes, edge types) and output format (markdown). It also clearly positions itself as the schema-discovery path, distinguishing it from the operational sibling tools.

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 gives clear usage context: use it to inspect schema details, optionally for a single type or all types, and check attribute names before setting attributes. It does not explicitly name excluded alternatives, but the 'schema-discovery path' statement effectively separates it from sibling mutation and execution tools.

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