Is Efec Cubic Brick

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does meaningfully disclose the check order, short-circuiting, and the failed_check output field. It does not describe error behavior or return-value details, but the presence of an output schema reduces the need for that.

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 second paragraph is dense and informative, with no wasted words. The first sentence largely restates the title, which is mild redundancy, but the overall length is appropriate.

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 predicate with an output schema, the description covers the essential behavior: what properties are checked, in what order, and where failure is reported. It omits definitions of the technical graph classes, but those are domain-specific and not critical for the intended audience.

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 fully documents the single graph parameter as a graph6 string or registry name, which is 100% coverage. The description adds no parameter-level nuance beyond restating that the graph is the object being tested.

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 names a precise predicate and spells out the ordered conditions: cubic, then essentially 4-edge-connected, then brick. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like is_efec and is_brick by identifying the composite nature of the test.

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 implies usage through its explicit check sequence and 'stopping at the first failure' behavior, but it never states when to prefer this tool over separate is_efec or is_brick calls. There is no explicit when-not or alternative guidance.

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