visualize-tasks

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose side effects and runtime behavior. It says 'Opens a visual app,' which implies a long-running or interactive process, but does not state whether it is read-only, blocking, requires a display, or how it terminates. The agent cannot anticipate side effects or resource implications.

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?

Two sentences with no filler; the main action and scope are front-loaded and the second sentence adds concrete detail on what the visualization shows. 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?

For a zero-parameter visualization tool, the description covers what it shows and how it is presented, but it omits usage conditions relative to sibling tools and behavioral details like whether the app runs asynchronously or requires user interaction. With no output schema or annotations, these gaps leave an agent without enough context to fully anticipate the tool's runtime profile.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so schema coverage is trivially complete and there is nothing for the description to add about parameter meaning. The baseline of 4 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?

Description states a specific verb ('Visualize'), a specific resource ('Beads task graph'), and the output form ('interactive DAG'), and names the content (dependencies, status, progress). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like poll-tasks and show-task, which are about individual task polling/detail.

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 description implies when to use it (when you need a graph-level view of task dependencies and progress), but it never explicitly contrasts with sibling tools such as poll-tasks or show-task, nor states when those alternatives would be more appropriate. No exclusions or conditions are provided.

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