codegraph_html

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

With no annotations provided, the description does disclose noticeable side effects: it writes codegraph-cache/graph.html, graph.graphml, and an obsidian/ vault. Yet it omits overwrite behavior, prerequisites, and other consequences of running a generation tool, so behavioral disclosure remains partial.

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?

Two focused sentences with the main purpose stated first and supporting artifact details after. Each clause adds relevant information without filler or redundancy.

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 description names the main and secondary outputs and the interactive features, but omits the tree and callflow formats mentioned in the schema and does not explain format-to-output relationships or any prerequisites. Given no annotations and no output schema, some practical gaps remain.

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 100%, so both path and formats are already documented in the input schema. The description mostly repeats format names and adds output-file locations rather than clarifying parameter semantics beyond the schema.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Generate') and resource ('interactive vis.js HTML graph visualization'), then lists distinctive UI features and concrete output artifacts. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like codegraph_build or codegraph_query without needing additional context.

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 makes the intended use clear by describing the generated visualization artifacts and supported formats. However, it never explicitly says when to prefer this tool over siblings or when not to use it, leaving usage guidance implied rather than stated.

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