kg_render_view

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It does not disclose side effects (e.g., file creation at output_path), authentication needs, rate limits, or whether the tool is read-only. The single sentence only describes the output, not 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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundancy. It efficiently conveys the core purpose. However, it could be expanded slightly to improve completeness without losing conciseness.

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?

Despite having an output schema (not shown), the description is insufficient for a 4-parameter tool with no annotations. Missing parameter details and usage context make it hard for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 0%, meaning no parameter descriptions exist in the schema. The description adds minimal meaning: 'given services' hints at node_ids, but nothing about output_path, theme, or graph_path. Required parameter output_path is unexplained.

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 uses a specific verb 'Render' and identifies the resource as 'focused diagram of just the given services (induced subgraph)'. This clearly differentiates from sibling tools like kg_render (likely renders full graph) and kg_render_around (renders around a node).

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like kg_render, kg_render_around, or create_diagram. The description only implies input via node_ids but does not explain when an induced subgraph is appropriate.

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