visualize

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral burden. It includes a 'Read-only' hint, which discloses non-destructive behavior, but lacks details on authorization requirements, rate limits, or potential side effects beyond reading.

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?

Three sentences: first establishes purpose, second and third explain formats. Front-loaded and no unnecessary words. Could be slightly more structured (e.g., listing format options) but overall 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 the low complexity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description adequately covers purpose, formats, and read-only nature. It does not explain the output structure or prerequisites, but these are not critical for basic usage.

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?

Input schema has 100% description coverage for both parameters (format with enum, showContent boolean). The tool description does not add any additional meaning beyond what is already in the schema, so 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 clearly states it generates a diagram of thought chain structure and branch relationships, using a specific verb ('generate') and resource ('diagram'). It is distinct from sibling tools like 'branch' or 'get_thought', which focus on manipulation or retrieval.

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 mentions two output formats (Mermaid for docs, ASCII for terminal) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It provides some usage context but lacks clear when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance.

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