Read a VNyan node graph

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly reveals that encrypted local-file paths are flagged rather than dumped as ciphertext, details the specific audit checks in the warnings array (e.g., blendshape written twice, parameter read-before-write), and states the data source ('disk, always readable'). This goes beyond a mere 'reads a graph' with actionable specifics.

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 composed of three dense sentences, each adding distinct value: main transformation, audit warnings, and source reliability. It is front-loaded with the core action before detailing ancillary behaviors. While somewhat lengthy, every clause contributes substantive information; no filler or redundancy is present, though it could be slightly tightened.

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 complexity of a graph parsing and auditing tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential return aspects: connection pairs, decoded documentation text, encrypted path flags, and the warnings array with specific audit checks. It does not fully describe the exact output structure (e.g., JSON field names) but provides enough for an agent to understand the tool's role and expected output nature. The source reliability and audit checks add context for safe usage.

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 100%, with the 'slot' parameter already documented as mapping to specific files (0 = redeems.json, etc.). The description does not add additional semantics about the parameter beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate. No supplementary details are needed.

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 states a highly specific verb ('parses,' 'resolves,' 'decodes,' 'flags') and a clear resource ('one graph slot'). It details the exact output transformations (connection resolutions, MessageBoxNode text decoding, encrypted-path handling) and distinct audit warnings, making its purpose unmistakable and differentiating it from siblings like vnyan_graph_write (writing) and vnyan_graph_list (listing slots).

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 — for reading and auditing a graph slot — but does not explicitly mention alternatives or provide exclusion conditions (e.g., 'use vnyan_graph_list to see available slots'). The 'always readable' note hints at reliability, but no direct comparison to sibling tools like vnyan_graph_write or vnyan_node_schema is given. This is adequate but not explicit.

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