community_detection

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits, but it only states the algorithm name. It does not mention whether the graph is modified, whether it works only on undirected graphs, what the return value looks like, or any side effects. This leaves the agent without critical behavioral context.

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 a single, concise sentence that puts the main action first. It avoids redundant wording and is easily scannable. However, it is somewhat under-specified, but conciseness measures efficient use of words, which is well done.

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?

The description provides only the basic purpose and algorithm name. There is no output schema, so the description should explain the return value (e.g., community assignments). It also does not describe any constraints like graph requirements or parameter formatting. Given the tool's complexity and lack of structured metadata, the description is incomplete for effective invocation.

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 input schema has one parameter 'graph' (string) with 0% schema description coverage. The description does not clarify what the 'graph' parameter expects (e.g., graph ID, name, or object). It only says 'in the graph' without adding any meaning about how to specify the graph, failing to compensate for the schema's lack of documentation.

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 function: 'Detect communities in the graph using Louvain method'. It uses a specific verb ('detect') with a specific resource ('communities in the graph') and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like connected_components or clustering_coefficients by naming the Louvain algorithm.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention alternative graph algorithms or any conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions. The only implied usage is that it is for community detection, but no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use context is given.

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