Visualize protocol state

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It states the action and output format, which implies a pure read/transformation behavior, but does not disclose potential validation, error behavior, or side-effect absence. It adds minimal context beyond the basic function.

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?

A single, well-structured sentence that is front-loaded with the action and output format. Every word adds value; no fluff or repetition.

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 is simple with one nested parameter and no output schema. The description explains the output format and indicates the input type, which is serviceable. However, it lacks explicit linkage to the inference tool and any usage context, making it only minimally complete for a tool with zero annotations and schema descriptions.

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 only says 'inferred state machine', which clarifies the parameter's provenance and general type, but does not explain the nested structure (states, transitions, initialState) or the semantics of fields like count. The property names are partially self-explanatory, but the description adds little beyond the schema.

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 a specific action ('Render') and a specific resource ('an inferred state machine') with a precise output format ('Mermaid stateDiagram-v2 text'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like proto_infer_state_machine (which infers, this visualizes).

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 phrase 'inferred state machine' implies it should be used on the output of an inference tool (likely proto_infer_state_machine), but no explicit when-to-use or alternative comparison is given. It is clear enough to infer the context, but lacks explicit guidance.

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