wiki_graph

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, and the description redundantly restates 'Read-only,' which earns no credit. However, with no output schema, describing the return as a Mermaid diagram with nodes=pages and edges=related links is genuinely valuable behavioral context the annotations do not supply.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that conveys purpose, output format, the optional focused mode, and the read-only nature with no wasted words.

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?

For a read-only render tool with no output schema and fully documented parameters, the description covers purpose, output shape, and the optional narrowing mode adequately. It stops short of describing diagram size limits or a concrete output sample, a minor gap.

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 all three parameters (depth, center, agent_id) are already documented in the schema with defaults, caps, and the 'ignored without center' caveat. The description only lightly restates the depth/center relationship, adding no syntax or format detail 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?

States a specific verb (Render) and resource (the wiki link graph) plus the output format (Mermaid diagram) and the node/edge semantics. An agent can distinguish it from wiki_ls, wiki_search, or code_map without opening a schema.

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 two usage modes — full graph vs. a focused view around `center` within `depth` hops — which is useful implied guidance. But it names no alternatives and gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not criteria versus sibling tools like wiki_ls or code_map.

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