viz

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description adds value by explaining default behaviors (e.g., similarity returns a summary map without bodies by default, option to include bodies). It also lists per-action parameters, providing additional context beyond what annotations offer.

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 well-structured with clear action breakdowns and parameter lists. It is front-loaded with the overall purpose and then details each action. Every sentence adds value, though it could be slightly more concise without losing clarity.

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's complexity (3 sub-tools, 13 parameters), the description covers key actions and their parameters but has gaps. For graph and UML actions, the return format is not described. The 'mode' and 'scope' parameters are not explained in the description, only in the schema. This leaves some ambiguity for the agent.

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 adds semantic grouping by action and mentions defaults for similarity params (min_lines, min_group_size, max_groups). However, many parameters (scope, mode, file_path, etc.) are only described in the schema, not in the description. The description adds some but not full compensation.

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 is a 'visualization and similarity facade' covering UML diagrams, call/dependency graphs, and duplicate code detection. It distinguishes these three capabilities and implicitly differentiates from sibling tools like search or edit by specifying the visualization/similarity domain.

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 lists the three actions and their parameters, implying when each should be used (e.g., 'action=uml for UML diagrams'). However, it does not provide explicit guidance on when not to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., using search for code queries). Usage is implied but not contrasted with sibling tools.

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