edmonds_karp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It discloses the algorithm and that it computes both max flow and min cut, but does not state whether inputs are mutated, output shape, or performance/complexity characteristics.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently states the operation, output, and algorithm.

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 computational graph algorithm with no output schema, the description gives the core operation and algorithm but omits return-value shape and assumptions about graph direction/capacities. It is enough to call but not fully complete.

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 the input schema already documents vertices, edges, source, and sink. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema baseline.

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 states a specific verb ('Compute') and resource ('maximum flow and minimum cut in a flow network') and names the algorithm. It does not differentiate from sibling max-flow tools such as dinic_max_flow, so it is clear but not fully sibling-aware.

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 Edmonds-Karp instead of alternative max-flow tools like dinic_max_flow or min_cost_max_flow. It only identifies the algorithm, leaving selection to the caller.

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