Serialize network to diffable JSON

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds 'Read-only' plus detailed behavioral context: best-effort custom parameters, truncation behavior, and the exact return shape {root, nodes[], truncated?, warnings[]}. This goes well beyond the annotations and fully discloses the tool's operational characteristics.

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 information-dense yet well-structured: it front-loads the read-only nature, defines the exact serialization behavior, explains the round-trip pairing, and gives concrete use cases. Every sentence contributes meaning without redundancy.

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 rich input schema, output schema, and annotations, the description covers all necessary aspects: what the tool does, what it returns, when to use it, and edge cases like truncation and best-effort parsing. No significant gaps remain.

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?

All three parameters are fully described in the schema (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds some context like 'immediate children' and 'best-effort' for include_custom_params, but it does not materially extend the schema's parameter semantics.

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 serializes a COMP's immediate children into a git-diffable JSON spec and enumerates exactly what is captured (node name, op type, parameters, wires, position). It distinguishes itself by positioning as the serialize half of a round-trip pair with rebuild_network, setting it apart from other network/snapshot tools.

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 use cases: snapshot a network for diffing or version control, and pair with rebuild_network for reconstruction. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the context is strong enough to guide selection.

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