mike_plot_network

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It lacks details on side effects (e.g., file overwriting), error handling for invalid inputs, or limitations. Only mentions 'no license needed' as a behavioral note.

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 extremely concise with three sentences, each adding value: main action, use case, and license note. No redundant or unnecessary 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 no annotations or output schema, the description covers the core purpose but omits important context such as error behavior, output format details, and parameter constraints. It is adequate for simple usage but not fully comprehensive.

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 0%, so description must compensate. It mentions '.res1d' as input and implies 'out_png' as output, but does not explicitly define each parameter or provide format/syntax details beyond the schema's basic names.

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 renders a network layout map of a MIKE+ model from a .res1d file, specifying visual elements (lines for pipes, points for nodes) and style (equal-aspect, house style). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like mike_plot_timeseries which handle time series.

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 indicates the tool is 'good for an overview figure' and mentions 'no license needed', providing context for appropriate use. However, it does not explicitly exclude cases where other tools should be used or mention prerequisites like file existence.

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