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 full burden. It reveals that the tool reads from disk, is always readable, and performs specific data transformations (decoding, flagging encrypted values). This goes beyond bare essentials, though it doesn't mention if it's idempotent or has side effects beyond reading.

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 a single, well-constructed sentence that conveys all essential information without redundancy. It is front-loaded with the core action and ends with source and readability, making it efficient and scannable.

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 a single parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the main aspects: operation, source, and data processing. It is complete enough for an agent to decide usage, though it could benefit from mentioning the output format (e.g., returns a JSON graph structure) for full completeness.

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% (one parameter 'slot' fully described). The tool description does not add further meaning to the parameter beyond what the schema already provides (slot numbers mapping to files). Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'reads' and the resource 'VNyan node graph'. It details specific actions like parsing, resolving connections, decoding MessageBoxNode text, and flagging encrypted paths. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like vnyan_graph_write (write) and vnyan_graph_list (list).

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It notes 'always readable' but lacks context about prerequisites, exclusions, or scenarios where another tool (like vnyan_graph_write or vnyan_bridge_graph) would be more appropriate.

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