Visualize design decisions and task DAG execution state by generating a Mermaid diagram that maps dependencies and progress.
Build a Graphify-style Mermaid visualization mapping design decisions and Task DAG execution state.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tasks | No | Task DAG nodes. | |
| decisions | Yes | List of key design decisions. | |
| projectName | Yes | Name of the project. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is well covered. The description adds that the output is a Graphify-style Mermaid visualization, but it does not explain what that format entails, whether any state is persisted, or how the result should be consumed.
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, front-loaded sentence that states the core action and output without any filler. Every word contributes to identifying the tool's purpose.
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?
The tool has no output schema, and the description does not explain what the generated visualization contains or how it is returned. While the annotations cover the safety profile and the schema documents inputs, the description leaves gaps around output structure and ideal invocation context.
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 100%, so the schema fully documents projectName, decisions, and tasks. The description only indirectly references decisions and task DAG state; it adds no parameter syntax, formatting, or requirement details beyond what the schema already provides.
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 states a specific verb (Build) and resource (Graphify-style Mermaid visualization) with a clear scope: mapping design decisions and Task DAG execution state. It distinguishes this tool's output from the other pixasso siblings implicitly, but it does not explicitly name or contrast with any sibling tool.
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 provides no when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives. It does not say when this visualization should be generated relative to other pixasso tools (e.g., audit_design, generate_test_plan), leaving selection largely to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.