generate_network_graph

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, indicating this is a safe read operation. The description adds context about what gets generated (a chart showing relationships), which is useful beyond the annotation. However, it doesn't mention important behavioral aspects like whether this creates a file, returns an image, has rate limits, or requires specific permissions. With annotations covering safety, the description adds some value but not comprehensive behavioral context.

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 appropriately concise - a single sentence that gets straight to the point. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and includes a helpful example. No wasted words or unnecessary elaboration. However, it could be slightly more structured by explicitly separating purpose from example.

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 (5 parameters with nested objects) and lack of output schema, the description is minimally adequate. The annotations provide safety information, and the schema documents parameters well, but the description doesn't address what the tool returns (image data, file path, etc.) or how to interpret the output. For a chart generation tool with no output schema, more information about the result would be helpful.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 5 parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. It mentions 'relationships between people in social networks' which hints at the data structure but doesn't provide additional syntax, format, or usage details for the parameters. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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's purpose: 'Generate a network graph chart to show relationships (edges) between entities (nodes)'. It specifies the verb ('generate'), resource ('network graph chart'), and provides an example use case ('relationships between people in social networks'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'generate_flow_diagram' or 'generate_sankey_chart' which might also visualize relationships.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With 24 sibling tools for different chart types, there's no indication of when a network graph is appropriate versus a flow diagram, sankey chart, or other relationship visualization tools. No exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative recommendations are mentioned.

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