degree_centrality

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It implies a read-only calculation but does not state that explicitly, nor does it mention whether the tool modifies the graph, handles weighted graphs, or has limitations. No return format or side effects are described.

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, which is efficient and front-loaded with the core purpose. However, it lacks important details, making it more under-specified than appropriately concise. A longer but more informative description would earn a higher score.

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 simple schema (one parameter) and lack of annotations/output schema, the description needs to compensate by explaining input and output expectations. It only states the high-level operation, leaving the agent uninformed about the graph parameter format and the structure of the returned centrality values. This is insufficient for confident 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not mention the 'graph' parameter at all. It gives no hint about the expected format (e.g., graph ID, JSON, or object reference), leaving the agent completely uncertain about how to invoke the tool.

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 purpose: calculating degree centrality for all nodes. It uses a specific verb ('calculate') and a specific metric ('degree centrality'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like pagerank or betweenness_centrality, though it does not explicitly differentiate from centrality_measures.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use degree_centrality versus alternatives such as pagerank, betweenness_centrality, or centrality_measures. The description does not explain the context or prerequisites for using this tool.

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