visualize_tree

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only says 'human-readable format.' The non-destructive, read-only nature is merely implied by the verb 'visualize,' not stated. The base64-encoding behavior for PNG/SVG and the ascii default live in the schema, and the description does not mention side effects, permissions, or output characteristics beyond format names.

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?

A single 11-word sentence that front-loads the verb and resource and then enumerates the formats with zero filler or repetition. Nothing could be cut without losing information, and no word is wasted. Exemplary 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?

For a low-complexity 2-parameter tool with full schema coverage, the description plus schema give an agent nearly everything needed to call it correctly: the purpose, the format choices, the default, and return behavior for image formats. The only gap is the absence of sibling-selection guidance and explicit confirmation of non-mutation, which keep it from a 5.

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 already documents treeId and the format enum, including the ascii default and the base64 return behavior for PNG/SVG. The description's format list merely mirrors the enum without adding meaning. Baseline 3 is correct because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Visualize') and resource ('a tree') and enumerates the five output formats (ASCII, Mermaid, DOT, PNG, SVG), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling data-retrieval tools like get_tree and get_tree_structure. The phrase 'human-readable format' signals a rendering/presentation tool rather than a raw-data or mutation tool. Self-sufficient and unambiguous.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, even though siblings like get_tree_structure could plausibly overlap. No selection criteria, exclusions, or prerequisites are given. An agent must infer when the rendering tool is the appropriate choice instead of a structure or data tool.

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