Document network

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is known, but the description adds valuable behavioral context: it reads nodes/connections and returns counts plus a Mermaid flowchart. It also clarifies scope (existing network) and that it does not plan or create. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: first defines the function and output, second contrasts with a sibling tool, third gives a clear use case. No filler words, well front-loaded with the core action and deliverable.

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?

With only two parameters, no output schema, and readOnly annotations, the description fully explains what the tool returns (readable map with counts and Mermaid flowchart), what it operates on (existing network), and when to use it (explain/hand off a patch). No missing information for a tool of this complexity.

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 input schema already provides 100% coverage for both parameters (path with default and description, recursive with default and description). The description adds no parameter-specific detail, but the schema handles that burden. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Clearly states it documents an existing network by reading nodes and connections and returning a readable map with counts by operator family/type plus a Mermaid flowchart. Explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling plan_visual by focusing on the actual project state rather than a plan.

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?

Gives explicit comparison with plan_visual: 'Unlike plan_visual (which plans from a description), this describes what's actually in the project.' Also names concrete use cases: 'Use it to explain or hand off a patch.' This tells the agent exactly when to choose this tool over the alternative.

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