visualize_dfg

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only mentions output formats (PNG, SVG) but omits behavioral traits such as whether the tool is read-only, authentication needs, or potential side effects like file generation. For a rendering tool, this is minimal but not contradictory.

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 a single short sentence, which is concise but at the extreme cost of completeness. While front-loaded, it lacks essential detail and every word could be expanded. It earns its place but fails to provide sufficient information.

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?

The tool has one parameter with no schema description, no output schema, and no annotations. The description fails to explain prerequisites, return format, or error conditions. For a tool that requires a dfg_id from a prior discovery step, this is critically incomplete.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage for its single required parameter (dfg_id). The description does not explain what dfg_id represents, how to obtain it (e.g., from discover_dfg), or any constraints. The description adds no value beyond the schema field name.

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?

Description clearly states 'Render a directly-follows graph (from discover_dfg) as PNG + SVG', specifying the verb 'render', the resource 'directly-follows graph', and the output formats. It distinguishes from sibling visualization tools like visualize_petri_net or visualize_dotted_chart.

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 vs alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites like first running discover_dfg. There is no exclusion criteria or context on appropriate use cases.

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