find_function_partition

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly discloses the output structure (partition ID, sibling functions, entry/exit points) and implies a read-only query operation. However, it does not mention error behavior or prerequisites (e.g., function must exist), which prevents a higher score.

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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose and then detailing the return values. Every word contributes meaning with no redundancy or filler.

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?

For a simple query tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the return values but leaves the workingDirectory parameter unexplained. It also lacks context about when to use this tool or what happens if the function is not found. It is adequate but has clear gaps.

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 schema has no property descriptions (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. It implicitly clarifies function_name by mentioning 'a function,' but provides no explanation for workingDirectory. The parameter semantics are therefore only partially addressed.

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 specific purpose: finding which partition a function belongs to in the Fiedler partition tree. It also lists the exact return values (partition ID, sibling functions, entry/exit points), making it distinct from sibling tools like compute_partitioning.

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 such as compute_partitioning or check_region_relationship. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or explicit alternative references, leaving the agent to infer usage from the purpose alone.

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