visum_network_analysis

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'detailed statistics and performance metrics' but doesn't specify what these include, whether the analysis is read-only or modifies data, potential performance impacts, or error conditions. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its 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?

The description is a single, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the main action ('Analyze') and resource, making it easy to parse. Every part of the sentence adds value.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (analysis with parameters) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is minimally adequate but incomplete. It specifies what the tool does but omits critical details like output format, behavioral traits, and usage context. For a tool with no output schema, it should ideally hint at return values, but it doesn't, leaving gaps in understanding.

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 schema fully documents both parameters ('includeGeometry' and 'sampleSize') with descriptions and defaults. The tool description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, such as how 'sampleSize' affects results or what 'geometric analysis' entails. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Analyze the loaded Visum network with detailed statistics and performance metrics.' It specifies the verb ('analyze'), resource ('loaded Visum network'), and output type ('detailed statistics and performance metrics'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'visum_network_stats' or 'visum_custom_analysis', which might offer similar functionality.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., a network must be loaded), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'visum_network_stats' or 'visum_custom_analysis'. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and context alone.

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