euler_tour

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does disclose the computed outputs (tin/tout timestamps, depths, subtree sizes), which is meaningful for a pure-computation tool, but says nothing about input validity requirements, handling of non-tree or disconnected input, or complexity.

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 no filler; the core action and the produced artifacts are packed in without redundancy.

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 and no annotations, the description must cover both behavior and returns; it lists the output fields but not their structure or indexing, and gives no routing guidance against the similarly named euler_* siblings. Adequate but with clear gaps for a 3-parameter 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 vertex_count, edges, and the root default are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional semantics (e.g., indexing conventions, edge ordering) beyond what the schema provides, 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 and resource ('Compute Euler tour of a tree') plus the produced outputs (tin/tout timestamps, depths, subtree sizes). The phrase 'of a tree' implicitly separates it from graph-path tools like euler_path and number-theoretic euler_totient, but it never names or explicitly excludes them.

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 use this tool versus alternatives such as euler_path, euler_totient, or other tree-decomposition tools (heavy_light_decomposition, lowest_common_ancestor). No preconditions or input expectations are given either, leaving the agent to infer usage entirely.

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