Visualize Network

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only mentions that the tool 'generates a Mermaid diagram' but does not state that it is a read-only operation, whether it requires special permissions, or any rate limits. The lack of behavioral context leaves the agent uncertain about safety and effects.

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 sentence that is concise and front-loaded with the key action and resource. However, it could be slightly expanded to include usage or output details without losing brevity. Still, it is efficient and clear.

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 no output schema, so the description should explain what the generated diagram looks like or how it is presented. It does not mention the format, whether it returns raw Mermaid syntax, or any prerequisites (e.g., services must have label selectors). For a visualization tool, this is 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 schema already covers the one parameter ('namespace') with a clear description. The tool description adds context ('mapping services to their backend pods via label selectors') which helps interpret the parameter's effect but does not introduce new syntax or options. Baseline 3 is appropriate as schema coverage is 100%.

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 verb ('Generate'), the resource ('Mermaid diagram') and the specific scope ('mapping services to their backend pods via label selectors'). It distinctly sets the tool apart from sibling tools like 'visualize_cluster_topology' and 'visualize_namespace'.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'summarize_network_policies' or 'render_network'. The sibling list includes many other visualization tools, but the description does not help an agent decide when this specific tool is appropriate.

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