Structured Tooling and Ontologies for Reliable Agents

During an incident review at a logistics company, the team discovered their planning agent had misrouted pallets because two tools--create_shipment and create_shipment_v2--accepted slightly different field names. The planner guessed, the API 500ed, and the fallback logic silently skipped the order. The root cause was not model quality; it was sloppy tooling. Agents cannot reason about ambiguous functions any more than developers can debug undocumented APIs.

This article argues that structured tooling and shared ontologies are the foundation of reliable agent behavior. When tools are described with strict schemas, versioning, and entity relationships, planners can compose workflows deterministically. When they are loose, you get brittle prompt hacks and mystery failures. The sections below cover tool design, ontologies, registries, governance, and a case study you can emulate.

---

Why Structure Beats Clever Prompts

Language models are great at natural language but terrible at inferring exact field names under pressure. If your planner must parse "update the contract" and guess whether the field is contractId, contract_id, or contractNumber, you already lost. Structured tools solve this by turning planning into a graph problem instead of a guessing game. They also make it easier to enforce validation, logging, and auditing.

The best teams document tools like APIs. They specify inputs, outputs, constraints, and failure modes. They publish examples and edge cases. They attach ontology metadata indicating which entities the tool touches. As a result, the agent never composes a plan that violates referential integrity or business rules. The summary: invest in schema discipline, and your prompts can shrink dramatically.

This means prompt engineering should be the last mile, not the bandaid over poor tooling.

Designing Tool Schemas and Registries

A tool schema is more than types; it is a contract. Use JSON Schema, Protocol Buffers, or Pydantic models to define parameters, constraints, and examples. Store the schemas in a registry that agents query at plan time. A minimal registry entry might look like this:

{
  "name": "create_support_ticket",
  "description": "Open a ticket in Zendesk and link it to a customer.",
  "version": "2.1.0",
  "input_schema": {
    "type": "object",
    "properties": {
      "customer_id": {"type": "string", "pattern": "^cst_[0-9a-f]+$"},
      "priority": {"type": "string", "enum": ["low", "medium", "high"]},
      "summary": {"type": "string", "maxLength": 240},
      "context": {"type": "string"}
    },
    "required": ["customer_id", "priority", "summary"]
  },
  "output_schema": {
    "type": "object",
    "properties": {
      "ticket_id": {"type": "string"},
      "status": {"type": "string"}
    },
    "required": ["ticket_id", "status"]
  }
}

Registries can be as simple as a Git repo served via CDN or as fancy as a dedicated service backed by Postgres. The important part is that agents fetch schemas dynamically instead of relying on hardcoded templates. Libraries such as OpenAPI or Smithery make it easier to auto-generate code from schemas so human engineers enjoy the same benefits.

This means the tool registry becomes part of your platform, not a wiki page no one updates.

Ontologies Tie Entities Together

Ontologies describe the entities and relationships in your domain: customers own subscriptions, subscriptions generate invoices, invoices affect revenue recognition. When your ontology is explicit, agents can reason about dependencies. For instance, they know that canceling a subscription requires updating entitlements and notifying finance.

Start simple: create a YAML or JSON file listing entities, their attributes, and relationships. For example:

entities:
  Customer:
    key: customer_id
    attributes: [name, region, tier]
  Subscription:
    key: subscription_id
    attributes: [plan, status, renewal_date]
    relations:
      customer: Customer
  Invoice:
    key: invoice_id
    attributes: [amount, currency, due_date]
    relations:
      subscription: Subscription

Agents reference this ontology when planning. Tools annotate which entities they read or write, so the planner can detect conflicts or required prerequisites. Graph databases like Neo4j or knowledge graph libraries like RDFLib can host richer ontologies if needed. The result is fewer "oops forgot to update billing" moments.

This means entity modeling is no longer optional documentation; it is an execution requirement.

Documentation Agents and Humans Can Share

Documentation is often written for humans and ignored by agents. Flip that script. Write docs in machine-friendly markdown with consistent headings: Purpose, Inputs, Outputs, Failure Modes, Related Entities. Store them in the registry alongside the schema and expose them via an API. When an agent encounters a new tool, it can fetch the doc, summarize the key constraints, and store them in short-term memory. Humans benefit too because they no longer dig through wikis for outdated instructions.

Teams such as Stripe and Shopify publish internal docs that follow this pattern, enabling automated linting and doc generation. You can replicate it by combining MkDocs with a schema parser. Version the docs with the schema so reviews stay synchronized. Over time the documentation becomes a shared source of truth for humans, agents, auditors, and onboarding. The final thought: docs should be executable, not decorative.

This means knowledge sharing becomes an API rather than tribal lore.

Testing Structured Tools Before Production

Structured tooling deserves structured tests. Build simulation suites that call each tool with representative payloads, ensuring schemas and ontologies align. Hook these suites into CI so a failing test blocks schema merges. For higher fidelity, run scenario tests where an agent executes an entire plan in a sandbox (see Simulation-First Testing). The simulator should assert that preconditions held, effects were realized, and costs stayed within budget.

Another useful tactic is to replay production traces against the new schema version. If the agent would have made a different decision, surface that diff to reviewers. Open-source frameworks like LangGraph and AutoGen include hooks for dry runs; extend them with assertions derived from your ontology. Testing structured tools sounds tedious, but it prevents silent regressions that would otherwise only appear in customer data.

This means quality assurance shifts left into the schema lifecycle instead of waiting for incidents.

Planning With Preconditions, Effects, and Costs

Once tools and ontologies are structured, planners can reason in terms of preconditions and effects. Each tool should declare what must be true before execution and what becomes true afterward. Example: cancel_subscription requires subscription.status == active and results in subscription.status == canceled plus invoice.status == void. Encoding this logic allows planners to verify sequences before acting.

You can store preconditions and effects as Rego policies, simple Python functions, or DSL snippets. Projects like CrewAI and LangGraph already expose hooks for such metadata. Add cost estimates--token count, latency, dollars--to each tool so planners can choose cheaper alternatives when equivalent. This transforms the planner into a constrained optimizer instead of a guesser.

This means you empower agents to justify every action based on facts, not vibes.

Governance and Versioning

Tools change. Without governance, agents break silently. Adopt semantic versioning for tool schemas. Store changelogs alongside the schema, and require approvals for breaking changes. When a tool reaches end-of-life, mark it deprecated in the registry and emit warnings if planners still reference it.

Automate linting: validate schema structure, enforce naming conventions, and ensure every field has a description. GitHub Actions or GitLab CI can run these checks. When a schema changes, regenerate SDKs and notify prompt authors via release notes. Some teams even run canary agents against the new schema to ensure compatibility. Governance sounds heavy, but it prevents outages.

This means structured tooling needs DevOps discipline, not ad-hoc edits.

Case Study: Structured Tooling at a Supply Chain Startup

A supply chain startup built an agent that orchestrates procurement, inventory, and shipping. Early pilots failed because the agent misused APIs with undocumented quirks. The team responded by standing up a tool registry backed by Postgres and GraphQL. Every tool schema lived in the registry, versioned via Git. The domain ontology mapped suppliers, purchase orders, shipments, and warehouses.

Planners queried the registry at runtime, fetched schemas, and built plans as DAGs with explicit preconditions and effects. They also stored cost metadata, so the planner knew that consolidating shipments saved money but took longer. Governance came from a weekly "tool review" where platform engineers and domain experts approved schema updates. The result: the agent's error rate dropped by 60 percent, and onboarding new workflows became a matter of defining a few schemas and ontology links.

This means structured tooling scales better than clever prompt patching.

Conclusion: Give Agents a Map, Not a Guessing Game

Reliable agents are built on structured APIs and shared mental models. Remember three lessons. First, treat tool definitions like public APIs with schemas, constraints, and examples; planners cannot improvise their way around missing documentation. Second, invest in ontologies and precondition/effect modeling so agents reason about the business, not just text. Third, govern your tool registry with versioning, linting, and changelogs so changes do not surprise the system. Continue with Simulation-First Testing to validate these tools before production, and revisit Agent Observability and Ops to inspect the plans agents generate. The open question to explore: can planners learn to query ontologies autonomously, deciding which schemas to request without instruction? Solving that would make structured tooling even more powerful.