tf_graph

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions generating DOT format but does not explain side effects (e.g., reads state, pure output), permissions needed, or what happens with the output. This is insufficient for safe tool invocation.

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 extremely short (5 words), which can be concise, but it omits critical information and does not front-load important context. It is under-specified rather than optimally concise.

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 absence of annotations and output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It does not address how the DOT output is delivered (file, stdout), whether it requires a valid Terraform state, or any prerequisites. The tool's complexity is not matched by the description.

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% for the single parameter 'dir'. The description does not mention 'dir' at all, leaving its purpose, format, and constraints undocumented. With low coverage, the description should compensate but fails.

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 verb 'Generate' and the resource 'resource graph (DOT format)', which is specific. However, it does not distinguish this tool from similar Terraform graph or visualization tools among the many siblings, e.g., tf_plan or tf_output.

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 like tf_plan for viewing dependencies or tf_show for plan details. The description implies it's for generating a DOT graph but offers no context for selection.

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