ui_render

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered externally. The description adds only the vague notion of a 'visibility policy' without saying which policy applies, where it comes from, or what output the render produces, so it contributes very little behavioral context.

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 short sentence with no filler, so it is concise and front-loaded. But at this length it is under-specified rather than truly efficient, offering no structure for an agent to act on.

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?

There is no output schema and no description of what the rendering returns or emits, and the numerous sibling ui_* tools are not differentiated. For a tool whose entire purpose is producing user-facing output, the definition is not complete enough to call it confidently.

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% and both project and workdir are documented in the schema, so the description need not repeat them. It says nothing about them, but the baseline of 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 gives a verb ('render') and a resource ('text for the user'), plus a qualifier ('according to visibility policy'), which is more than a tautology. However, it is vague about what text is rendered, where the output goes, and how it differs from the many sibling ui_* tools such as ui_announce, ui_views, or ui_override.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus ui_announce, ui_views, ui_override, ui_hide, or ui_clear, nor any stated preconditions (e.g., a policy must be set first). The agent is left to infer the selection criteria entirely.

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