visualize

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

Explicitly declares 'Read-only,' which is critical for a tool that visualizes data. It describes output as a single text block, explains the two formats and their rendering contexts, and discloses default values for both parameters. No annotations are present, so the description fully carries the behavioral disclosure burden.

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 well-structured, starting with the core purpose, then breaking down format choices and parameter effects. Every sentence adds value, though it is slightly verbose for the simple parameter set. Still, it remains clear and efficient.

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 no output schema, the description fully explains what the tool returns (single text block) and for what purposes. It covers both parameters, their defaults, and the output's nature. No gaps remain for an agent to successfully invoke this tool.

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% (both parameters described in schema). The description adds substantial value beyond the schema: it explains the utility of each format (mermaid for markdown, ascii for terminal), sets defaults explicitly, and describes the effect of showContent. This helps the agent choose parameter values intelligently.

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 visual diagram of the thinking chain, covering thoughts, branches, branch points, and revisions. This distinctly separates it from sibling tools like 'branch' or 'think' which perform different actions on the chain.

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?

It provides context for use: 'Use to share the reasoning structure or to orient in a long chain.' This gives the agent a clear scenario for when to invoke. While it doesn't explicitly list when not to use, the purpose is straightforward enough that alternatives are not critical.

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