viz

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

Annotations declare readOnly, destructive, idempotent, and openWorld hints. The description adds that it is a facade covering multiple sub-tools and discloses default response for similarity (compact map, no bodies). No contradictions with 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 fairly long but well-structured with bullet points for each action. Some redundancy exists (e.g., repeating action names), but the structure aids readability.

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?

With 10 parameters, 1 required, no output schema, the description covers all actions and key parameters. It explains default responses and parameter usage sufficiently for an AI agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 meaning by grouping parameters per action (e.g., for uml: diagram, source, target) and explaining default behavior (include_bodies omitted for compact). This adds value beyond the schema.

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 it is a facade for code-intelligence visualization and similarity, and lists three distinct actions (uml, graph, similarity) with specific purposes. This differentiates it from siblings like 'search' or 'edit' by focusing on visual and similarity tasks.

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 explains when to use each action and what parameters to use for each. While it lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance, the action enumeration and parameter grouping provide clear context.

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