discover_oc_petri_net

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the output (handle and counts) and variant behavior, but does not disclose permissions, side effects, or prerequisites. The behavioral traits are partially covered.

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 with three sentences: purpose, variant explanation, and output summary. It is front-loaded and contains no superfluous information.

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 existence of an output schema, the high-level return description is acceptable. However, the 'ocel_id' parameter is not explained, and the concept of a 'handle' is undefined. The description is adequate but has minor gaps.

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%, but the description adds meaning for the 'variant' parameter by explaining the two options and their trade-offs. However, it does not describe the 'ocel_id' parameter beyond its schema definition. This adds value but is incomplete.

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 object-centric Petri net (OCPN), with a specific verb 'Discover' and resource 'object-centric Petri net'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'discover_petri_net' by specifying 'object-centric'. The variant options are also explained, adding specificity.

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 implies use for object-centric event logs but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like 'discover_petri_net'. It describes the variant trade-off (im vs imd) but lacks explicit when-not or alternative recommendations.

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