Document network

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description aligns perfectly, stating 'read its nodes and connections' (read-only) and 'return a readable map'. It adds behavioral detail about the output (counts, flowchart) beyond annotations, with no contradictions.

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?

Two sentences, no wasted words, front-loaded with the action verb and resource. Provides clear distinction from a sibling tool and a usage hint in a compact form.

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 description explains the output (readable map, counts, Mermaid flowchart) even though there is no output schema. It positions the tool well against plan_visual. However, it does not mention error scenarios or format details for the output, which could be improved but is acceptable given the tool's simplicity.

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 both parameters (path, recursive) with clear defaults and descriptions. The description adds no additional detail about parameters, so baseline 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 uses specific verb 'Document' and resource 'EXISTING network', and explicitly contrasts with sibling 'plan_visual' by stating it describes what's actually in the project vs planning from a description. The output is clearly defined: counts by operator family/type and a Mermaid flowchart.

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 explicit guidance: 'Use it to explain or hand off a patch.' It also contrasts with plan_visual for when not to use (if planning from a description). However, it does not mention prerequisites or other alternatives beyond plan_visual.

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