visualize_graph

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It mentions key behaviors (HTML output, physics simulation, customization) but omits important details: that it creates a file, potential resource intensity for large graphs, or dependency on an existing knowledge graph. This leaves the agent underinformed.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then customization details, then use case. Every sentence adds value; no redundancy or filler.

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 9 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description covers key features (interactive HTML, customizable colors/sizes, physics). However, it lacks context on prerequisites (e.g., graph must exist) and post-action steps (how to view the HTML file). Still, it is largely complete for a visualization 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?

The schema covers 100% of parameters, so baseline is 3. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema; it repeats enum options (e.g., 'PageRank/betweenness/degree' for size_by) but does not clarify semantics like output_path's default behavior or the impact of physics_enabled.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Generate interactive HTML visualization of the knowledge graph using PyVis.' It distinguishes itself from sibling visualization tools (e.g., visualize_cluster_distribution) by focusing on the full graph, and provides specific details about customization options.

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 implies usage for exploring entity relationships and discovering patterns, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., other visualization tools). No exclusion criteria or comparative guidance is provided.

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