visualize_law_network

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 mentions generating interactive HTML but fails to disclose side effects such as writing to a file via output_path or opening a browser via open_browser (which defaults to true). This is a significant gap since the tool can create files and launch UI, which the user should know.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and every sentence adds value. It is concise without redundant filler, making it efficient for an agent to parse quickly.

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, side effects (file creation, browser opening), and an output schema, but the description omits these details. It covers the main functionality but leaves out important context like how the HTML is produced, what happens with the keyword, and what the output contains, making it incomplete for an agent to invoke confidently.

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 0%, and the description only vaguely mentions 'keyword' without naming parameters or explaining limit, output_path, or open_browser. It does not compensate for the low schema coverage, as no parameter semantics are provided beyond a hint that keywords can filter the visualization.

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 'visualizes the law ontology network' with a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes itself from siblings like search_law and get_law_detail by focusing on visualization and producing interactive HTML, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 usage when network visualization is needed, and mentions keyword-based scanning for specific laws. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool instead of siblings, nor does it provide exclusions or alternatives. This is clear context but lacks explicit guidance.

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