Draw a local height comparison

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

Beyond the general non-destructive annotations, the description adds critical operational behavior: it requires a 'local browser' to function, and clarifies that 'Input names and heights remain in the output file,' which is specific data retention behavior.

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 efficient, front-loading the primary action ('Render locally configured figures...') and immediately listing the key capabilities. The language is dense but highly descriptive, avoiding padding.

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?

Considering the complexity of a rendering tool that requires local resources and specific visual configurations, the description is complete. It covers the engine, the supported elements, the file types, and the environmental requirements.

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?

Since schema coverage is only 50%, the description compensates by explaining what the tool processes (names and heights) and what options are available (silhouettes, technical ruler options, explicit units), adding meaning to the data inputs.

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 title and description are highly specific: 'Render locally configured figures, names and heights' into SVG or PNG. This clearly defines the function (creating a visual comparison chart) and the resource (data visualization).

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 explains the intended use case (rendering figures, names, and heights) and lists the specific features (silhouettes, technical rulers). While it doesn't explicitly list sibling alternatives, the highly specific nature of the function serves as a clear boundary.

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