discover_handover_network

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

The description discloses that the tool returns a handle under the 'sna' kind plus resource/connection counts, and explains the beta parameter's effect on distance decay. However, with no annotations, it fails to mention whether the tool is read-only, any authentication needs, or side effects, leaving gaps in transparency.

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 concise, using a few sentences to convey purpose, edge definition, and beta functionality. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and structured well. However, there is minor redundancy ('resource A's activity was directly followed by...') that could be tightened.

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, the description adequately explains the network concept and beta. However, it does not provide enough context about the required input (log_id) or the optional resource_key, which are critical for correct invocation. The complexity is moderate, so completeness is adequate but not strong.

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?

The description explains the 'beta' parameter well, but does not clarify the 'log_id' (what constitutes a valid log ID) or 'resource_key' (its role and expected values). Since schema coverage is 0%, all parameters rely on the description, which only fully handles one out of three.

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 states 'Discover the handover-of-work network' and defines the edge semantics and beta parameter, making the purpose clear and specific. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling network tools like discover_subcontracting_network or discover_working_together_network, lacking distinction.

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 explains the tool's function but provides no guidance on when to use it versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites such as requiring a loaded event log, nor does it suggest contexts where network analysis is appropriate. Minimal usage guidance.

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