invariance_dna_list_edges

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, covering safety. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: the exact output shape ({data: DnaEdge[], next_cursor}) and pagination token semantics, which are not inferable from the schema or annotations. It does not contradict annotations and provides non-obvious details about the return format.

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 two sentences, front-loads the core purpose, includes a clarifying example, and ends with a compact output format. Every clause earns its place; there is no redundant or padding text. This is precisely engineered for an agent scanning multiple tool definitions.

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 read-only list tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior: what it lists, example, filters, and response shape. It does not state default ordering, behavior when no filters are provided, or the relationship to the similar invariance_run_operational_graph tool. Those are minor gaps given the schema and annotations, but a note about empty-filter behavior would make it fully 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 description coverage is 80% because four of five parameters (kind, cursor, run_id, entity_id) have descriptions; limit lacks one. The description repeats that run_id, kind, and entity_id are filters, but adds no new semantic detail beyond the schema. Since the schema already documents these parameters well, 3 is the appropriate baseline.

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 and resource ('List durable Company DNA edges') and gives a concrete example ('refund -[REQUIRED]-> policy'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like invariance_dna_list_edge_candidates by using 'durable' and from object-listing tools by focusing on relationships/edges. This leaves no ambiguity about what the tool returns.

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 use for listing confirmed/durable edges and mentions filter dimensions (run_id, kind, entity_id). However, it does not explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like invariance_run_operational_graph or invariance_dna_list_edge_candidates, nor does it mention any exclusions. Usage context is present but implicit, not actionable for an agent deciding among many sibling tools.

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