visualize_graph

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It correctly indicates a non-destructive operation (generates a visualization), but does not explicitly state it is read-only or describe authorization requirements. The description is adequate but not explicit about behavioral traits.

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 a single sentence that efficiently conveys the core functionality. It is front-loaded with the key action ('Generate...') and avoids unnecessary words. However, it could be slightly expanded to include usage tips without losing conciseness.

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 tool's simplicity (2 optional params, no output schema), the description covers the primary function. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., existing graph data) but this is implied. For a straightforward visualization tool, the description is largely 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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for both 'title' and 'maxEntities'. The description adds context about visual encoding (color, size) but does not enrich parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline score of 3 applies.

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 it generates a self-contained interactive HTML page with a D3.js force-directed graph, specifying visual encoding (color by type, size by importance). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that return raw data or non-visual outputs.

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 implies its use for visual representation, but it lacks explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives like read_graph or visualize_subtree. No when-to-use or when-not-to-use context is provided.

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