Has Qbinv Edges

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the return behavior: the count and the edges themselves. However, it does not explain behavior for non-brick inputs, invalid graph strings, or graphs with no invariant edges beyond what the output schema might capture.

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 two short sentences: a focused question followed by the return value. It is front-loaded, contains no filler, and every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and output.

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 one-parameter query with an output schema, the description gives the essential output information. However, it lacks a definition or context for 'quasi-b-invariant edges' and provides no guidance about valid inputs or how this relates to the similarly named sibling tools.

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?

The input schema already documents the single 'graph' parameter with a clear description ('a graph6 string or a registry name'), so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 action: it checks whether a brick has any quasi-b-invariant edges and returns a count and the edges. It is specific enough to be understood, but it does not distinguish itself from siblings like is_edge_binvariant or classify_edges beyond using a different term.

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 this tool versus the closely related sibling tools. The word 'brick' implies it applies to bricks, but no explicit prerequisite or alternative-selection hint is provided.

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