get_edge_bottlenecks

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, non-destructive, idempotent. Description adds substantial behavioral detail: mentions algorithm names (Brandes, Tarjan), output JSON structure, and score composition. 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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with purpose and algorithm explanation, then usage guidance. No extraneous words, every 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?

Despite no output schema, the description details the return format (edges with fields, articulationPoints, stats) and scoring formula. Combined with high schema coverage and annotations, the tool is fully documented for agent use.

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?

Input schema covers all three parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The description does not add new parameter details beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 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?

Description explicitly identifies the tool's purpose: finding architectural bottleneck edges using betweenness, bridges, and articulation points. It explains the scoring formula and distinguishes from get_pagerank, all with specific verbs and domain terms.

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?

Clearly states when to use ('identify edges to monitor during refactoring, prioritize decoupling work') and explicitly advises to use get_pagerank for general importance, providing an alternative.

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