analyze_graph_metrics

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It reveals that graph construction happens internally, but says nothing about cost/performance of betweenness centrality, whether the graph is persisted or ephemeral, or how the spatial inputs drive edge creation. For a 7-parameter analytical tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a substantial gap.

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 short, front-loaded sentences with a clean verb-then-returns structure and no filler. Slightly wasteful in that the return list duplicates what the existing output schema already declares.

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?

An output schema exists, so enumerating return values in prose is redundant but harmless, and the description is complete on the 'what' side. However, with 7 undocumented parameters, no annotations, and no explanation of the graph_definition options, an agent lacks enough information to invoke it correctly beyond accepting all defaults.

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% across 7 parameters, and the description adds essentially no meaning: x, y, z, radius_ly, system_name, graph_definition, and max_edge_distance are never explained. At best 'Build a graph' weakly implies that distance-related parameters control edges, but the allowed values for graph_definition (default 'jump_range_proximity') and the role of coordinates are left entirely opaque.

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 verb and resource: builds a graph and computes structural metrics, then enumerates the exact metrics (components, degree distribution, bridges, articulation points, betweenness, motifs). An agent knows precisely what it does, though nothing distinguishes it from siblings like build_system_graph or graph_sensitivity_analysis.

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?

No guidance on when to choose this over build_system_graph (which presumably also constructs a graph) or graph_sensitivity_analysis. The phrase 'in one call' hints at an efficiency trade-off versus composing steps, but no explicit when/when-not or alternative routing is given.

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