nebula_render_result

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds rendering behavior (graph vs table, charts, actual GQL) and the mandatory explanation content, but says nothing about input provenance or failure handling. Adds moderate value over the annotations.

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?

Two tight sentences; the display behavior is front-loaded and the explanation mandate follows. Dense but every clause carries information, with no filler.

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?

A rich output schema ($defs for GraphSpec, TableResult, ChartSpec, ExplanationContext) means return values need not be explained, and the description correctly focuses on display behavior and the required explanation. The remaining gap is not tying the tool to nebula_execute_query as the source of 'result'.

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 at the top level is 0%, so the description must carry the load. It does meaningfully characterize the 'explanation' parameter (evidence-based, observations, insights, limitations, not only counts), but adds almost nothing about what the 'result' parameter should contain, leaving half the parameters unexplained outside the nested $defs.

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: 'Display a query result', plus the rendering branch (graph entities -> interactive graph, otherwise the table). It is clear what the tool does, but it never explicitly differentiates itself from the sibling nebula_render_graph, leaving the agent to infer the boundary.

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?

It gives content requirements for the explanation ('not only counts') but no explicit when-to-use versus nebula_render_graph or indication that the result must come from nebula_execute_query. Usage is implied by the input shape rather than stated.

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