graph_from_terraform

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the conversion action but does not disclose any side effects, prerequisites (e.g., terraform CLI availability), error behavior, or output format details beyond the version. For a tool that processes a file, it lacks information about what happens on invalid input or whether it modifies anything.

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 concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. The Args section is structured and efficient, though the account description could be slightly more informative. No wasted words.

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 moderate complexity (2 params, no output schema), the description covers the main input and output but lacks details on error handling, output structure, and the exact role of the account parameter. It is adequate for a basic call but not fully complete for an agent that might need to handle edge cases.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains plan_path with a concrete example command, which adds value beyond the schema's bare 'Plan Path'. However, the 'account' parameter is only described as 'opcional, cuenta/entorno' with no further detail on its format or effect, leaving a gap for that parameter.

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 converts a `terraform show -json` plan into an Architecture Graph v0.4, specifying the input format and the output. It distinguishes itself from siblings like graph_from_account and graph_from_evaluation by the input source (Terraform plan), though it doesn't explicitly name them.

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 by specifying the required input (plan_path) and the command to generate it, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like graph_from_account or graph_from_evaluation. The context is clear for the primary use case, but no exclusions or alternative routing are provided.

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