Compute centroid decomposition of a tree to obtain centroid parents and depths for efficient tree traversal and hierarchical analysis.
Compute the centroid decomposition of a tree, returning centroid parents and depths.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| edges | Yes | Tree edges as [u, v] pairs (must be N-1 edges) | |
| vertex_count | Yes | Number of vertices (max 50,000) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.11Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the return contents (centroid parents and depths), but says nothing about complexity, tie-breaking among centroids, behavior on degenerate or invalid trees, or error conditions.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence that states the operation and its return values with zero filler. Nothing is wasted.
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 annotations and no output schema, the description does some compensating work by naming the outputs, but it omits acceptance conditions (connected tree, N-1 edges), edge-case behavior, and complexity expectations that matter for a bounded-input algorithm 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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters are fully documented in the schema (edge pairs, N-1 constraint, vertex count max 50,000). The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond that, making the baseline 3 correct.
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 names a specific operation (centroid decomposition) and its input domain (a tree), which is enough for an agent to distinguish it from algorithmic siblings like heavy_light_decomposition or centroid-adjacent tools. It stops short of differentiating against any named alternative, but the resource and verb are unambiguous.
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 statement of when to prefer this over related decomposition/segment-tree tools, nor any prerequisite guidance (e.g. tree must be connected, N-1 edges required). Usage is only inferable from the tool name and schema.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.