create_network

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the critical destructive behavior 'clearing any previous network,' which is a key safety detail. This adds value beyond a simple 'create' by warning of side effects.

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 extremely concise with two sentences plus an Args line. It front-loads the core action and clearing behavior, with no superfluous words. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

Given the single parameter, absence of annotations, and presence of an output schema, the description is quite complete. It covers the tool's purpose, behavior (clearing), and parameter. It could mention the return value or the exact scope of 'clearing,' but overall it's sufficient.

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%, but the description explains the 'name' parameter's purpose: 'Name for the new network (default: "PetriNet")'. This adds meaningful context beyond the schema's type and default, compensating for the low coverage.

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 the tool's function: 'Create a new empty Petri Net, clearing any previous network.' It uses a specific verb ('create') and resource ('Petri Net'), and distinguishes from sibling tools which add components to an existing network.

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 advises 'Use this FIRST when building a new model from scratch,' providing clear context for when to invoke the tool. However, it lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative comparisons.

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