discover_activity_based_resource_similarity

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

With no annotations, the description explains the output (a weighted network) and its interpretation. It does not state whether the tool is read-only or safe, but the nature of discovery tools implies non-destructive analysis. The behavioral description is clear but could explicitly mention that no data is modified.

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: first states the primary function, second adds interpretation and comparison. Every word adds value, no fluff. Front-loaded and 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 that there are 3 parameters with 0% schema description coverage and no annotations, the description fails to provide essential parameter guidance. Although an output schema exists (does not need return explanation), the lack of parameter documentation makes the tool definition incomplete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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%, meaning the input schema provides no descriptions for parameters. The tool description does not mention any parameter names or roles, leaving the agent to guess the meaning of log_id, activity_key, and resource_key. This is a critical gap.

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 discovers an activity-based resource-similarity network, defines edge as weighted similarity of activity profiles, and interprets it as 'who does similar kinds of work'. It distinguishes from handover network by noting complementarity. This is specific and actionable.

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 explicitly says it 'complements handover by showing skill/role overlap', providing a clear use case and differentiation from a sibling tool (discover_handover_network). However, it does not provide comprehensive when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance for all alternatives.

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