cg_graph

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

No annotations are provided, and the description gives no information about side effects, permissions, or whether the operation is read-only. The tool appears to be a read operation, but this is not explicitly stated.

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 concise, consisting of two short sentences that front-load the main purpose. However, it sacrifices necessary parameter details for brevity, earning a slightly lower score.

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 tool has three parameters with no descriptions in the schema, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is inadequate. It lacks details on parameter usage, return values, and ties to sibling tools.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description should explain what parameters like 'source', 'network', and 'extra_files' mean in the context of the tool. It does not, leaving the agent to guess their purpose.

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 shows a network's compiled graph, listing specific elements like instances, ports, widths, interfaces, and connections. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like cg_synth or cg_simulate.

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 notes it is 'useful to confirm wiring', providing a clear use case. However, it does not mention when not to use it or suggest alternative tools for other tasks.

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