quipu_cooccurrence

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

Goes well beyond the readOnlyHint/openWorldHint/non-destructive annotations by disclosing the result ordering ('ordered by overlap strength'), the determinism/auditability guarantee, and the underlying provenance semantics that determine what qualifies as a match. What it does not cover is cardinality or result limits, which matters for an open-world query.

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 core definition and its differentiating clause are front-loaded, and the dense phrasing earns its space by packing join semantics, ordering, and bitemporal behavior into three sentences. The terminology ('Bead', 'touched code entity') assumes domain familiarity, which slightly raises the reading burden.

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 carries the return-shape burden and does so adequately by specifying that it returns other work-items sharing at least one entity, ordered by overlap strength. It is thin on result cardinality, truncation behavior, and what an empty result means, which a graph-traversal query arguably should disclose.

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 coverage is already 100%, establishing a baseline of 3, and the description adds real meaning on top by framing valid_at as the 'as of <date>' point-in-time question, which is more actionable than the schema's generic ISO-8601 'valid-time filtering'. The tx parameter is left entirely to the schema, so the addition is partial rather than comprehensive.

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 (returns the other work-items) against a specific input (work-item/Bead IRI) and explains the exact join path via the provenance chain Bead <-implements- GitCommit -modifies-> entity. The phrase 'graph query over typed provenance edges, not a statistical mine' distinguishes it from sibling analytics tools such as quipu_impact or quipu_path_cone.

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?

Provides clear context for when the tool applies (co-occurrence of touched code entities) and explicitly scopes the bitemporal mode with 'pass valid_at for which work co-occurred as of <date>'. It does not name a concrete alternative or state when NOT to use it, so the agent must infer routing from the sibling list rather than being told.

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