generate_mind_map

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

With no annotations, the description bears full burden. It mentions it saves (persistence) and is RPC-backed (no browser), but omits side effects, authentication requirements, or potential conflicts. Minimal behavioral context beyond the save action.

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 concise sentences with zero waste. Front-loaded with key verb and output details.

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?

Output schema exists, but description's mention of return value is adequate for basic understanding. However, it does not explain how parameters work together or any constraints, leaving gaps for a tool with three optional parameters.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides; it doesn't clarify parameter relationships (e.g., notebook_id vs notebook_url).

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 tool generates and saves a mind map from a notebook's sources, specifies the output (mind-map id and JSON structure), and distinguishes it from browser-based tools via the 'RPC-backed (no browser)' note.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like 'generate_study_aid'. The description implies it's for mind maps only, but lacks conditions or exclusions.

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