graph_sensitivity_analysis

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it says nothing about cost/expense of running graph construction repeatedly, what happens if 'radii' is null (presumably falls back to radius_ly), or whether the graph is persisted. It only discloses that results are returned per radius.

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 sentences with the action front-loaded and no filler. Slight redundancy in restating that per-radius metrics are returned, which the output schema already covers, but nothing 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?

An output schema exists, so return-value detail is not required, and the stated purpose is captured. But for a 7-parameter, zero-coverage, annotation-free analysis tool, the definition omits too much about inputs and the null/default fallback logic to be considered 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% across 7 parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not. It clarifies only 'radii' indirectly via 'jump-range radii'; x, y, z, radius_ly, system_name, and the graph_definition default of 'jump_range_proximity' are entirely unexplained in both schema and prose.

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 names a specific verb+resource ('Run graph construction across multiple jump-range radii') and states the output shape ('per-radius metrics'), which separates it from build_system_graph (single graph) and analyze_graph_metrics (metrics on an existing graph). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the near-twin sibling spatial_sensitivity_analysis, leaving that pair ambiguous.

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 phrase 'for parameter sensitivity testing' hints at intent but gives no when-to-use rule and no exclusions. With siblings build_system_graph, analyze_graph_metrics, and spatial_sensitivity_analysis all in scope, the agent is left to guess which sensitivity/variant tool to call.

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