Validate a DOT graph and report if its computed layout requires 5x5 encapsulation for oversized rendering.
Validate DOT and report whether its computed layout needs 5x5 encapsulation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| dot_path | Yes | ||
| project_dir | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover the read-only safety profile, and the description adds behavioral context by specifying that it computes a layout and reports an encapsulation requirement. This goes beyond the schema and 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?
A single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the tool's core behavior with no filler. Every word earns its place.
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, has annotations, and an output schema exists, so the missing return-value documentation is not a major gap. However, parameter meanings are undocumented and relative usage versus siblings is absent, leaving clear gaps for an agent deciding how and when to invoke it.
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% and the description does not explain either parameter (dot_path, project_dir). The parameter names hint at their meaning, but there is no added semantic clarity about what each path refers to or how they relate to validation.
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 states a specific verb and resource ('Validate DOT') and identifies a distinct output ('whether its computed layout needs 5x5 encapsulation'). It is distinguishable from sibling render/environment tools, though the '5x5 encapsulation' jargon may be opaque without domain knowledge.
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 its siblings like graphviz_render or graphviz_environment. The verb 'Validate' implies the use case, but there are no explicit conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.