device_graph

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

Annotations already declare this as read-only and idempotent. The description adds that the output is an image, but no additional behavioral context such as default time ranges or error behavior is provided. It is consistent with annotations.

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 with no filler. It efficiently communicates the core function without wasting 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 complete schema and read-only annotations, the brief description is mostly sufficient. It would benefit from a note that graph_type should come from device_graphs_list, but the schema already directs users there for valid values.

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 coverage is 100%; all seven parameters have descriptions in the schema. The tool description itself adds no parameter-level detail beyond 'device-level graph' and 'image', so it relies on the schema for 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 identifies the action ('render'), the resource ('device-level graph'), and the output ('as an image'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like device_graphs_list (which lists graph types) and port_graph (which renders port-level graphs).

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that device_graphs_list should be used to discover valid graph_type values, nor does it contrast with port_graph for port-level rendering.

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