scenario

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses determinism and, crucially, the honest-fallback behavior: low ordering_coverage or gaps mean the graph lacks order knowledge, so the agent must not fabricate and should pass gaps to the user. This is valuable context beyond the schema.

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?

Two dense, well-organized sentences: core behavior first, usage routing second, behavioral caveat last. Every clause earns its place; there is no filler or repetition of schema content.

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?

With a full output schema and complete parameter documentation in the schema, the description covers purpose, invocation criteria, algorithm, and gap-handling behavior. An agent has everything needed to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already fully documented. The description reinforces the query type with examples but adds no new semantics beyond the schema for max_nodes or query format; 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?

States a specific action ('constructs a process scenario'), resource ('related process nodes'), and method ('topologically sorts with enables/requires edges') to return an ordered step flow. It also distinguishes itself from k_snippets by clarifying that simple facts belong there, making sibling differentiation clear.

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?

Explicitly says when to call: for sequence/scenario requests such as 'construction order from foundation to 3rd floor' and 'temporary works procedure'. It also names the alternative for simple facts (k_snippets), providing a clear routing rule.

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