abstract_sna

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses behavioral traits: it reports specific connectivity metrics (top-k connections, sinks, sources) and clarifies that truncated is always False. However, it does not mention whether the operation is read-only or any side effects, though the nature suggests it is safe. There is no contradiction with missing annotations.

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 well-structured with a front-loaded purpose and bullet points for reported items. It is concise without unnecessary fluff, though it could be slightly shorter. Each sentence contributes value, earning its place.

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 the presence of an output schema (not shown but context indicates true), the description does not need to detail return values. It adequately explains the input (sna_id, top_k), the output structure (listed stats), and the relationship to discovery tools. It is complete for a simple tool with two parameters.

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. It implicitly explains top_k by stating it bounds the strongest connections, but it does not describe sna_id beyond implying it is a handle from a discovery tool. The description adds some meaning but not enough to fully cover the parameters, given the lack of schema descriptions.

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's purpose: 'Describe the top-k connections of a social-network (SNA) model in prose.' It specifies the resource (SNA model) and the action (describe top-k connections), distinguishing it from sibling abstract tools like abstract_log_attributes or abstract_variants, which focus on different aspects.

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 provides clear context by listing which discovery tool outputs are valid inputs (e.g., discover_handover_network, discover_working_together_network). It implicitly tells when to use this tool (after those discovery steps) and notes that 'truncated is always False.' However, it does not explicitly exclude when not to use or mention alternatives, but the context is strong.

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