path_transmission

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden well: it discloses the data sources (Semantic Scholar then citing paper full text), the SPC weight fallback via corpus_json, and that the tool writes a CSV coding sheet. It also honestly frames draft labels as heuristics rather than findings, though it omits where the CSV lands and any rate/error 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?

Front-loaded with the pipeline before the label taxonomy, and every clause carries information. The label definitions are necessarily verbose but arguably earn their place; it remains one dense paragraph with no restated boilerplate.

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 complex, non-annotated tool with no output schema, the description covers the process, the derived labels, and the returned artifact (CSV coding sheet with blank coder columns). Remaining gaps — output location and failure/fallback detail — are minor.

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 baseline 3; the description goes further by tying parameters to output behavior — corpus_json supplies each edge's SPC weight, max_contexts bounds contexts kept per edge, and construct_terms drives the context-naming count used in labeling.

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 ('Transmission audit of a main path') and enumerates exactly what is gathered per consecutive edge. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like citation_context (single citation) or citation_network (path construction, whose output it consumes).

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?

Usage context is clear from the pipeline description (it operates on a main path as citation_network reports it, and produces a coding sheet for two coders). It implies when this is appropriate but never explicitly excludes alternatives such as citation_context or coding_agreement.

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