Graph as mermaid

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds concrete behavioral context beyond annotations by specifying the output format (fenced mermaid block), the node representation (one per id with status classes), and edge labelling. It could add more detail about status classes or output size, but for a parameterless read-only tool this is sufficient.

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 tightly written sentences with the primary action and output format front-loaded. The first sentence delivers the essential behavior, and the second sentence usefully routes to alternatives. No filler or redundant schema repetition.

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?

For a parameterless, read-only, idempotent render operation, the description covers the output format, scope, and intended use case, and clearly contrasts with sibling tools. The annotations complete the safety picture. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to invoke this 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There is no parameter detail needed, and the description correctly focuses on behavior and scope rather than input semantics.

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 names a specific verb ('Render'), a clear resource ('the whole graph'), and an exact output format ('fenced mermaid flowchart block'). It also differentiates itself from siblings by explicitly contrasting with 'deps and impact', which return a single node's neighborhood. An agent can immediately understand what this tool does and how it differs from nearby alternatives.

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 states the primary use case (rendering the whole graph) and explicitly points to sibling tools ('deps and impact') for a narrower, node-scoped view. This provides clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance without requiring the agent to open other tool schemas.

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