dinic_max_flow

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, yet it discloses nothing about behavior beyond the algorithm name. It does not state assumptions (directed edges, integer capacities), complexity/limits, or failure modes for invalid source/sink.

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 with zero padding. It is appropriately terse, though it is arguably under-specified rather than optimally concise given the missing behavioral detail.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description is responsible for explaining what is returned (a max-flow value, a flow assignment, or both), and it says nothing. Combined with no annotations and no disclosed assumptions, the definition leaves significant gaps for a non-trivial 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 description coverage is 100%, so all four parameters (vertex_count, edges, source, sink) are already documented in the schema, including the [u, v, capacity] edge format. The description adds nothing beyond this, 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 (compute) and resource (maximum flow in a network) and even names the algorithm, so the operation is unambiguous. However, it gives no hint of how it relates to siblings like edmonds_karp or min_cost_max_flow, which also compute flows, so differentiation is left to the name alone.

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, no prerequisites (e.g., directed graph, non-negative capacities), and no mention of the competing flow algorithms among the siblings. The agent must infer everything from the name and schema.

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