graph_compute

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that compute is local and deterministic and that no LLM is involved, which rules out network/agent behavior, but it never says what the outputs look like, whether blast_radius actually executes tests (a side effect), or what errors occur on bad matrix input.

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?

A single dense block, front-loaded with the core concept, then engine enumeration, then USE/DO NOT USE guards. No filler sentences; the pipe-delimited structure is easy to parse.

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?

For a 7-parameter, 1-required, no-output-schema, no-annotation tool, the description covers the routing question well but leaves matrix argument shapes, the meaning of 'bits', and the query semantics for bm25/blast_radius unaddressed. An agent could choose the right tool but struggle to construct a valid call.

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 has to compensate. It does map the engine and type enum values to concrete operations, which is genuinely useful, but 'query', 'bits', 'matrix', 'matrix_a' and 'matrix_b' receive no meaning, shape, or required-when guidance.

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 capability ('deterministic local compute') and enumerates the three engines with their sub-operations (bm25 search, blast_radius test impact, alu eval/matrix/ieee754), which is far more specific than the opaque tool name. It also implicitly separates itself from file-edit and reasoning tools, so an agent can place it without opening the schema.

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?

Explicit 'USE WHEN: locating code, checking test impact, or arithmetic without an LLM' and 'DO NOT USE: for free-form reasoning or file edits' give both positive selection criteria and hard exclusions. This is the strongest kind of routing guidance.

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