find_spatial_clusters

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does add real context: systems without coordinates are excluded from clustering but still noted, and returns include noise points and per-point assignments. It omits key operational behavior: with zero required parameters, it never says how the sphere center is chosen (x/y/z vs system_name), nor whether the EDSM query is rate-limited, cached, or expensive.

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 action and the pipeline are front-loaded in the first two sentences with zero filler. The line-broken formatting is slightly ragged but no sentence is wasted.

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?

Wrong anchor: an output schema exists, so return-value detail is optional, yet the description succinctly covers clusters, noise points, and per-point assignments. Combined with the disclosed coordinate-exclusion behavior, this is sufficient. Re-score: 4 — the one genuine gap is center-point resolution among optional x/y/z/system_name, which materially affects invocation for a 7-param tool with 0 required parameters.

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, so the description must compensate. It does add functional meaning for radius_ly (the EDSM query bound) and for eps_ly/min_samples (the DBSCAN parameters), but x, y, z, and system_name — including which one determines the center point — are never mentioned.

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 ('Find DBSCAN spatial clusters in a bounded EDSM sphere') and outlines the two-stage pipeline (EDSM query by radius_ly, then DBSCAN with eps_ly/min_samples). This distinguishes it from plain retrieval siblings like edsm_sphere_systems or query_bounded_region, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given. Nothing tells the agent when to prefer this over edsm_sphere_systems, query_bounded_region, or analyze_spatial_geometry/analyze_spatial_geometry's sensitivity variants; usage is only inferable from the algorithm description.

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