render_site

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It does well on output shape (archive returns a file path; mode=live returns {live_url, run_id, last_seq} over a loopback SSE server), but says nothing about side effects such as file writes, server lifetime/cleanup, or whether max_nodes truncates silently.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and the human-vs-AI routing decision, with no filler. Dense jargon ('loopback SSE server', 'last_seq') is used without unpacking, which costs a bit of readability.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description does the heavy lifting on purpose, mode semantics, and return values. It still leaves three of four parameters undefined and omits operational details (server lifecycle, truncation, permissions), which matters for a tool that both writes a file and opens a local server.

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 coverage is 0% and the schema supplies only bare titles and defaults, so the description must compensate. It fully explains `mode` (archive vs live) and ties it to distinct return values, but site_id, scene, and max_nodes get no meaning at all — max_nodes in particular could imply truncation behavior that is left unstated.

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 and resource ('Render the graph as a self-contained HTML viewer') and frames it as the human inspection path, which separates it from the search/ask/neighbors tools. It does not distinguish itself from the sibling render_build, so an agent cannot tell which renderer to pick from the description alone.

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?

Explicitly routes AI-facing queries away to search/ask/neighbors, giving a clear when-not-to-use rule alongside the 'human inspection' use case. The missing piece is a comparison to render_build, the other rendering sibling, which is left to inference.

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