Taskgraph View

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description is consistent. It adds value by specifying the output format (Mermaid) and the graph's semantic content (discoveries driving work), which are not in the annotations. This is helpful context for a read-only rendering tool.

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 sentence that is direct and front-loaded with the primary action ('Render the task graph as Mermaid') and immediately provides the key content ('showing how discoveries drove the work'). 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 simplicity (no parameters, read-only, output schema present), the description is fully adequate. It states what it does, the output format, and the semantic content. An agent has enough information to call it correctly without additional guidance.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema fully covers parameter documentation (100% coverage). The description does not need to add parameter semantics. Baseline of 4 applies for no-parameter tools.

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 uses a specific verb 'Render' with a clear resource 'task graph' and specifies the output format 'Mermaid'. It also adds context about content ('how discoveries drove the work'), which differentiates it from siblings like taskgraph_next (likely next steps) and taskgraph_update (modifying the graph).

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention scenarios where it is appropriate, nor does it reference any sibling tools for comparison. An agent would have to infer usage from the description alone.

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