render_dag_map

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior on its own. It does reveal that rendering is bounded by depth/width and that nodes may be elided, which gives some insight into output shaping. However, it does not mention side effects, error behavior, or the exact nature of the output beyond being a Mermaid flowchart, leaving some behavior implicit.

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, front-loaded sentence with no fluff. Every phrase ('Mermaid flowchart', 'depth+width bounding', 'elision') adds distinct value, making it concise and appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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?

The tool has 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, but the description is very brief. It does not clarify whether node_id is required or what happens if omitted, nor provide examples or usage context. While it conveys the core purpose, it leaves too many operational details unresolved for confident invocation.

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 only 25% (only hide_statuses has a description). The tool description partially compensates by linking 'depth+width bounding' to max_depth and max_children, and 'elision' to hide_statuses. However, node_id is left without explanation, and the relationship between the bounding/elision terms and specific parameters is not explicit.

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 specific action ('Render a Mermaid flowchart') and adds key differentiators ('depth+width bounding + elision'). It clearly indicates this tool produces a visual rendering rather than a raw data list, which helps distinguish it from siblings like list_nodes or get_dag_context, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical scenarios, or cases where another tool would be preferable. The description only states what the tool does, not when it should be used.

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