explore_equivalent_states

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It discloses the BFS algorithm, the meta-graph output, and discovery limits via max_depth/max_states, which is useful context, but it does not state whether exploration mutates the server state, persist results, or whether it is potentially expensive/exponential for large depths.

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?

Front-loaded purpose sentence followed by a compact Args/Returns block; every line carries information. The Returns line is slightly redundant given an output schema exists, but it is not wasteful.

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 4-parameter tool with no annotations, the description covers purpose, algorithm, and all params, and an output schema exists so return values need not be detailed. However it omits when-to-use guidance and any warning about the cost/limits of BFS exploration, which are relevant for a tool that could blow up combinatorially.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it explains all four parameters, including that rules are 'serialized RewriteRule dicts' and that max_depth is BFS depth and max_states caps unique states. Only formatting/syntax details of the rule dicts are left unspecified.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: 'Explore alternative diagram states reachable via rewrite rules,' and adds that it constructs a meta-graph of structurally unique configurations. This clearly separates it from apply_rewrite_rule (single application) and check_diagram_equivalence, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied by the mechanism (BFS over rewrite rules from a starting diagram). There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no condition that selects this over explore_reasoning_space or analyze_reachability, and no exclusions.

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