add_arc

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes the constraint (bipartite) and parameter meanings, but lacks details on error conditions (e.g., invalid node types), return value behavior, or side effects. With zero annotations, more behavioral context would be expected for a 5.

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: a one-line title, a usage note, and an Args block. It avoids redundancy and is well structured. However, the Args section could be shortened by relying on schema defaults, but it's still efficient.

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?

The tool has an output schema (not shown) and 4 parameters with 0% schema coverage. The description explains parameters but lacks error handling, prerequisites (e.g., network must exist), and return value semantics. Given the simplicity and sibling context, it is moderate but not fully complete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides an Args section explaining source_id, target_id, weight, and arc_type with meanings. Although the arc_type values are indirectly given ('normal', 'inhibitor', 'read'), the descriptions are helpful. Could be improved with constraints (e.g., weight > 0).

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 'Add an arc connecting a place to a transition or vice versa', specifying the verb, resource, and the bipartite constraint. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools that add other Petri net elements, and explicitly marks itself as a low-level tool.

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 explicitly says 'LOW-LEVEL TOOL — use only when no existing pattern covers the required topology', providing clear when-to-use guidance. It also mentions the bipartite constraint, indicating when not to use (invalid connections).

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