cos_graph_communities

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safe-read behavior is known. The description adds one useful behavioral detail: the response key is `processes` rather than `communities`. However, it doesn't disclose other behavior such as pagination, sorting, or limits beyond the default parameter values.

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 extremely short, but this is under-specification rather than efficient structure. The phrase 'Louvain process clusters' is cryptic and reads like a fragment, not a clear explanatory sentence. It lacks a proper subject-verb-object structure and doesn't front-load the key information an agent needs.

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 tool has 3 parameters with no descriptions and no stated return shape beyond one key, the description is grossly incomplete. It fails to explain the purpose, the meaning of parameters, or the overall response structure. Even with an output schema present, the description adds almost no context for an agent to correctly select and invoke the tool.

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%, so the description must compensate for the lack of parameter documentation. It doesn't mention any of the three parameters (top, min_size, max_members), their meanings, or how they affect results. The agent is left guessing from parameter names only.

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 'Louvain process clusters' is a noun phrase with no verb, making it unclear whether the tool computes clusters, returns clusters, or does something else. It vaguely gestures at community detection via Louvain but doesn't clearly state the action or resource. It also doesn't distinguish this from sibling graph tools like cos_graph_centrality or cos_graph_ranking.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No context is provided about typical use cases, prerequisites, or conditions under which this tool is preferred. The only hint is about the response key, which is operational, not about usage.

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