tarjan_scc

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full disclosure burden, yet it says nothing about the return shape (e.g. a list of vertex-set components), whether self-loops or isolated vertices are handled, or complexity/scale limits. Naming Tarjan's algorithm is mildly informative but does not cover observable behavior.

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 the algorithm with zero filler. Nothing is padded and the key information comes first.

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 definition should ideally describe the return format and edge-case handling for a graph algorithm, and it does not. It remains minimally adequate because the operation is a well-understood deterministic computation, but return-value shape is left for the agent to guess.

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% and there is only one parameter, whose description ('Array of directed edges') already explains it. The description adds no syntax details such as whether vertex identifiers are arbitrary strings or how isolated vertices are represented, 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 ('Find'), a concrete resource ('strongly connected components of a directed graph'), and names the exact algorithm used. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling SCC tools kosaraju_scc and gabow_scc, so an agent cannot infer why it should pick this one from the description 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 or when-not-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the near-identical siblings (kosaraju_scc, gabow_scc) that solve the same problem. The agent is left to infer usage entirely from the name.

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