qa_viz

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

The description says 'Regenerate the knowledge graph HTML,' which implies a write or state-changing operation, while annotations declare readOnlyHint=true. This is a direct contradiction. It also does not disclose side effects of driving Chrome or what 'read the panel' returns.

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 compact and front-loaded with the primary action. The second sentence adds useful context about being in-harness QA rather than a plugin, though it is not strictly necessary.

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?

This is a relatively complex tool involving HTML regeneration and browser automation, yet the description omits what the tool returns, whether it launches Chrome, and any side-effect or safety details. The contradictory read-only annotation makes the picture incomplete for an agent deciding whether 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 coverage is 100% and the only parameter, project, already has a clear description ('Project slug (auto-detected if omitted)'). The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 names a specific action and resource: regenerating the knowledge graph HTML and driving Chrome to click nodes and read the panel. It is clear enough to understand the tool's job, though it does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like knowledge_viz or graph_related.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as knowledge_viz or graph_related. The phrase 'In-harness QA, not a plugin' hints at context but does not explain selection criteria or exclusions.

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