discover_ocdfg

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Describes return value (handle and shape summary) but does not disclose side effects, authorization needs, or whether it's read-only. For a discovery tool, likely non-destructive, but not explicit. Adequately transparent given the simple nature.

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, front-loaded with purpose, followed by concise details on return value. No extraneous information. Every sentence earns 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 one required parameter and presence of an output schema, the description covers purpose and return value sufficiently. It mentions shape summary details (activity count, object types, edge counts), which is good. Could be slightly more specific about the handle, but overall complete for a discovery 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 has 0% description coverage, and the tool description does not describe the only parameter (ocel_id). Description adds no meaning beyond the schema's property name and type. The agent receives no guidance on what value to provide for ocel_id.

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?

Clearly states it discovers an object-centric directly-follows graph (OC-DFG). The description distinguishes it from sibling tools like discover_dfg (which is for regular event logs) by specifying object-centric nature. It also mentions returning a handle for later visualization, which is unique.

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?

Implies usage for OC-DFG discovery but does not explicitly state when to use vs alternatives like discover_oc_petri_net or discover_dfg. The mention of 'later rendering via visualize_ocdfg' provides context but no exclusion or alternative guidance.

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