mcp_engram_visualize

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the edge cost formula (1+volatility), how high-α paths burn depth budget faster, and the master switch behavior. This provides substantial transparency into the algorithm's behavior beyond what a schema could convey.

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 extremely concise, consisting of two sentences: the first states the core purpose, the second explains the key behavioral modifier. Every sentence adds value without repetition or fluff.

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 no output schema, the description adequately indicates the output is a Mermaid diagram and clarifies the depth parameter's dual meaning. It could mention edge cases or prerequisites (e.g., nonexistent concept), but the essential operational context is present for the tool's moderate complexity.

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?

Although the schema already provides descriptions for all three parameters (100% coverage), the description adds nuance by explaining the continuous α-budget cost model for depth and the master switch override for alpha_weighted. This enriches the static parameter definitions with behavioral context.

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 renders a BFS subgraph from a seed concept as a Mermaid diagram, using a specific verb ('Render') and resource ('BFS subgraph', 'seed concept', 'Mermaid diagram'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on visualization and the specialized α-weighted BFS behavior.

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 explains when to use the default α-weighted mode and how to switch to classic unit-hop BFS via the alpha_weighted parameter or environment variable, which is helpful operational guidance. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion cases, so it falls short of a full 5.

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