build_graph

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool generates a self-contained HTML file and returns its path. Potential side effects like processing time for large knowledge bases are not mentioned, which prevents a 5.

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 relatively concise with four sentences. The first sentence clearly states the purpose, and subsequent sentences add details. However, the phrase 'self-contained HTML file' could be merged with the next sentence to reduce redundancy. Still, it earns its place.

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 the lack of annotations, no parameters, and the presence of an output schema (which likely describes the return path), the description is complete enough to guide an agent. It covers what the tool does, the output format, and even compatibility. No critical 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?

The input schema has zero parameters, and the description fully compensates by explaining what the tool does without needing to describe parameter semantics. The description adds value beyond the schema by detailing the output and compatibility with Obsidian vaults.

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 verb 'build' and the resource 'knowledge graph visualization.' It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by specifying it generates an interactive HTML graph, unlike query_knowledge or list_knowledge. The purpose is specific and 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?

While there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, the description implies use when wanting to visualize knowledge cards as nodes and wiki-links as edges. None of the sibling tools serve a similar purpose, so differentiation is naturally clear. A slight improvement would be to explicitly mention not to use for non-graph queries.

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