abstract_ocdfg

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It reveals that pm4py computes the OCDFG internally, which adds transparency about processing. However, it does not disclose other behaviors like performance impact, side effects, or return format details.

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?

Two sentences plus a note; no wasted words. The key information is front-loaded. Could be slightly more structured with a list of parameters, but still efficient.

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?

Given 3 parameters with no description for 2, and an output schema existing but not detailed in the description, the agent gets partial guidance. The reference to alternative tools helps, but lack of parameter details hurts completeness for a moderately complex tool.

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 description must compensate. It only mentions 'ocel_id' and that it is different from 'ocdfg_id'. The other two parameters (max_len, include_performance) are not explained, leaving semantic gaps for the agent.

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 tool produces an 'Object-centric directly-follows graph as text.' It distinguishes from siblings by specifying it takes 'ocel_id' not 'ocdfg_id' and contrasts with the discover_ocdfg/visualize_ocdfg pair for rendered output.

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?

Explicitly tells when not to use (for rendered version) and provides alternative: 'use Phase 2's discover_ocdfg → visualize_ocdfg pair.' Also clarifies the parameter difference (ocel_id vs ocdfg_id), preventing misuse.

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