Visualize Team Relationships

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a real prerequisite not in the annotations — the TEAM_DB_PATH environment requirement — plus the output medium (Mermaid source). It stops short of clarifying render-vs-text output or whether large depths are expensive.

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 short sentences: what it produces first, how to scope it second, prerequisites last. No filler, no restating the title, everything front-loaded.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and annotations cover the safety profile. Still, for a five-parameter graph tool, the description omits whether filters combine or are alternatives, what an unfiltered call returns, and any guidance on use_test_db — gaps an agent must guess at.

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 only 20% (only workspace_id is documented), so the description must compensate. It does add meaning for three of five parameters by naming the tag and entry_id filters and framing depth as traversal depth, but use_test_db is never explained and the default depth of 2 and filter interaction rules are left to the schema.

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?

States a specific verb (Generate), a concrete artifact (Mermaid diagram), and the resource scope (relationships between team entries). No sibling produces a diagram, so an agent can distinguish it from team_search, team_get_statistics, or team_export_markdown without opening the schema.

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 second sentence implies the three ways to drive the tool (entry ID, tag, or depth traversal), which is useful usage context. However, it never says when to prefer this over, say, team_search or team_get_collaboration_matrix, whether the filters are combinable or mutually exclusive, or what happens when no filter is supplied.

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