mcp_engram_visualize

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It mentions BFS and Mermaid output but does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, nor does it discuss performance, side effects, or error behavior. Adequate but not comprehensive.

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 only two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and contains no redundant or filler words. Every sentence adds value.

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 clarifies the output format (Mermaid diagram) but lacks details on return structure or error handling. For a simple visualization tool with two parameters, this is mostly sufficient.

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 context (BFS, Mermaid) but does not elaborate on parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. No additional constraints or format details are given.

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 action ('Render a BFS subgraph'), the resource ('seed concept'), and the output format ('Mermaid diagram'). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools, which focus on CRUD operations on concepts.

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 use for visualizing relationships but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like mcp_engram_query_with_momentum or mcp_engram_search_by_relation. No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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