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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does state the primary behavior: parsing code into a graph with lanes, nodes, and edges. However, it does not disclose error handling for invalid code, whether the graph follows a specific schema, or any limitations on input size or format.

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 front-loads the action and output shape without redundant words. It conveys the essential information efficiently for a simple one-parameter tool.

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 low-complexity tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description provides enough high-level information: input is code, output is a structured JSON graph with lanes, nodes, and edges. It stops short of detailing the exact graph schema or failure behavior, but the omission is minor given the tool's simplicity.

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% and the only parameter, 'code', is already described in the schema as 'FlowZap Code to parse'. The description adds little beyond confirming the input is FlowZap code, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Parse') with a clear resource ('FlowZap Code') and a concrete output ('structured JSON graph (lanes, nodes, edges)'). This distinguishes it from siblings like flowzap_validate or flowzap_get_syntax by stating exactly what it produces.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool instead of siblings such as flowzap_artifact_to_diagram or flowzap_validate. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or exclusions, so an agent must infer the appropriate use case.

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