Conduit

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations by specifying the exact return format ('Array of { nodeId, svg } objects, one per node') and clarifying that it works for 'one or more' nodes. While annotations cover read-only, idempotent, and error conditions, the description provides concrete output structure information.

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 perfectly concise with two sentences that each serve distinct purposes: the first states the tool's function, the second specifies the return format. There's zero wasted language, and the information is front-loaded appropriately.

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 rich annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, edgeCaseWarnings, usageExamples) and complete schema coverage, the description provides exactly what's needed: clear purpose statement and output format clarification. The combination of description and annotations creates a complete understanding of this read-only data retrieval tool.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the input schema already fully documents both parameters (nodeId and nodeIds) including their mutual exclusivity. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline expectation.

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 specific action ('Get SVG markup') and target resource ('vector nodes'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'get_vector' or 'export_node_as_image'. The verb 'Get' combined with the resource type provides precise purpose identification.

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 implies usage context through 'one or more vector nodes' but doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like 'get_vector' or 'export_node_as_image'. However, the annotations provide clear usage examples and edge case warnings that help guide proper usage.

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