visualize_schema_graph

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It thoroughly discloses the tool's interactive UI behavior, the semantics of nodes and edges (e.g., 'nodes = entity types, colored by distance from the focus, with recent-change activity badges'), and the fact that the user can continue exploring in the UI. It also clarifies the alternative schema_change_report does the same data without rendering, adding 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 sized for its complexity. It starts with the main purpose, then systematically explains each view, and ends with alternatives—every sentence contributes necessary information without redundancy or fluff. The structure is logical and easy to follow.

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?

Despite lacking annotations and an output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It covers the tool's purpose, all configurable aspects (view, focus_object), interaction model, and relationships to sibling tools. It even explains the visual details (color-by-distance, badges) and the non-rendered alternative, giving the agent enough context to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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?

Although the schema includes descriptions for since, endpoint, and focus_object, the 'view' parameter has no schema description, and the description fills this gap with detailed semantic guidance. It maps each view to specific focus_object types, provides real-world examples, and explains the default when focus_object is omitted. This significantly exceeds what the schema offers.

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 opens the Graph Atlas visualizer, a force-directed schema graph, and distinguishes it from schema_change_report ('use schema_change_report for the same data without rendering'). It uses specific verbs ('Open', 'visualizer') and specifies the resource, making its purpose unmistakable.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance for each view ('entity', 'permission', 'role') with concrete examples of focus_object values (e.g., 'group', 'User.Invite.All'). It also instructs when to omit focus_object ('Omit focus_object for an overview') and names alternatives (expand_schema_node, schema_change_report), giving clear context for choosing this tool versus siblings.

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