analyze_network

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

The description implies a read-only analysis but does not explicitly state safety or authorization needs. It mentions defaulting to authenticated user but lacks details on sampling behavior (maxSampleSize) or what 'network quality metrics' entail. No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden but falls short.

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-load the main purpose and default behavior with no waste. Every word adds value.

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?

Despite good purpose clarity, the description lacks completeness for a 4-parameter tool with no output schema. It does not describe return values, parameter effects, or limitations, which is inadequate for correct 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 only indirectly mentions 'actor' via defaults. It fails to explain the purpose or behavior of includeFollowers, includeFollows, and maxSampleSize, leaving key parameters undocumented in natural language.

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 analyzes a user's social network and lists specific metrics (follower/following ratios, engagement patterns, mutual connections, network quality), distinguishing it from siblings like analyze_engagement or find_influential_users.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The description does not mention when not to use it or provide context for choosing between similar tools such as analyze_engagement or find_similar_users.

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