get_edge_bottlenecks

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

The description is consistent with annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint) and adds details about return format, algorithm (Brandes, Tarjan), and formula. No contradictions.

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 concise, front-loading purpose and key details. Every sentence adds value, and it avoids redundancy with structured fields.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description explains the exact return structure (edges, articulationPoints, stats) and scoring formula, providing complete context for a complex graph analysis tool.

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 already fully documents parameters. The description does not add new meaning beyond the schema, meeting baseline but not exceeding.

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 identifies the tool's purpose: finding architectural bottleneck edges (edge betweenness, bridges, articulation points) in the import graph. It includes the scoring formula and distinguishes itself from sibling tool get_pagerank.

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 states when to use the tool ('identify edges to monitor during refactoring and to prioritize decoupling work') and when not to ('For general importance use get_pagerank instead'), providing explicit usage guidance.

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