whodb_platform_app_logic_graph

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that this operates on a 'hosted draft' via an 'in-app builder audit', which usefully implies a non-mutating inspection of draft content. It adds no depth on cost, latency, or limits, so a 3 is right given annotation coverage.

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 the capability and followed by the workspace note. The enumerated output areas are dense but earn their place as scope definition. Minor redundancy with the schema's workspace wording keeps it from a 5.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully enumerates what the map surfaces (events, scripts, bindings, state, navigation, overlays, function contract issues), giving the agent a sense of the return scope. Combined with annotations covering read-only safety and schema covering all params, the definition is adequately complete, though selection guidance versus siblings is absent.

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 100%, so id, page, and workspace are fully documented in the schema, including that workspace is per-call only. The description repeats the workspace targeting idea ('for per-call targeting without changing defaults'), which the schema already states. No syntax or format detail is added, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb ('Map') and a concrete resource set (a hosted draft's page events, scripts, bindings, state, navigation, overlays, and function contract issues) via the in-app builder audit. This is far more specific than a tautology, and the niche 'logic graph' concept is legible from the enumerated dimensions. It does not differentiate from the many neighboring app/graph tools (app_view, resource_graph), keeping it out of 5 territory.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no named alternative among the dense sibling set (e.g. whodb_platform_app_view, whodb_platform_workspace_map, whodb_platform_resource_graph). The only usage-adjacent sentence concerns workspace targeting, not tool selection. An agent must infer context from the description alone.

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