Serialize network to diffable JSON

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

The description explicitly states 'Read-only', consistent with annotations. It details the serialization scope (immediate children), parameter capture (mode+expression vs evaluated value), and return structure containing warnings and truncation flag. This adds behavioral context beyond annotations.

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 (3 sentences) and front-loaded with 'Read-only'. Each sentence serves a distinct purpose: stating the action, detailing output, and suggesting use case. No redundant or extraneous information.

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 presence of an output schema, the description need not detail every field. It covers key aspects: serialization of parameters with mode+expression, input wires by source node name, best-effort custom params, return structure including truncated and warnings. However, it does not address error handling or invalid paths.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description paraphrases the schema descriptions for path, max_nodes, and include_custom_params without adding significant new meaning. It adequately reinforces the purpose of each parameter.

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 serializes a COMP's immediate children into a diffable JSON spec, specifying what is included (name, op type, parameters with mode+expression, input wires, position) and the round-trip pairing with rebuild_network. This distinguishes it from other similar tools.

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 says to use it for snapshotting a network to diff or version control, and mentions rebuild_network as the counterpart. However, it does not explicitly contrast with other inspection tools like get_td_nodes or snapshot_td_graph, leaving some ambiguity about when to choose this over alternatives.

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