distributed_deadlock_wait_for_graph

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the algorithm and the cost (0.035 USDC), but does not state whether the tool is read-only, what it returns (e.g., a list of cycles), or what payload structure is expected. The cost is also already implied by the paymentSignature schema parameter.

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 with a cost parenthetical. It is concise and front-loaded with the core purpose, but omits critical usage details, making efficiency less valuable.

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?

The tool is complex (distributed deadlocks, multi-agent locks) and has no output schema named. The description fails to specify what the payload should contain or the output format, leaving agents uncertain how to construct a valid call.

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 100%, so baseline 3. The description does not add details about the payload format or the expected lock graph structure; it only restates generic input parameters.

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 clearly states the verb ('Detects') and the resource ('distributed deadlocks across multi-agent shared resource locks'), and names the algorithm ('Tarjan cycle detection'), making it distinct from sibling tools like detect_circular_dependencies.

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?

No mention of when to use this tool versus alternatives, no context about scenarios requiring deadlock detection, and no exclusions. It only states what it does.

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