render_html_page

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It reveals that the tool wraps HTML in a design system, requires specific mf- prefixed CSS classes, and warns against including outer tags. It also mentions the themes and references get_tool_guide for details. No discussion of auth or rate limits, but those are less critical for a rendering tool.

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, well-structured paragraph with no redundant information. Key points are front-loaded (what it does, no Docker) and all details are relevant. Every sentence adds value, making it concise yet comprehensive.

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?

The tool has 5 parameters and no output schema. The description covers the main input constraints and provides a reference for more details. It could have mentioned the return value format (a complete HTML string), but overall it is sufficiently complete for the tool's simplicity and supported by the schema.

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 100%, but the description adds value by explaining usage beyond schema: e.g., body_html is 'inner content only', themes are expanded with contexts, nav_sections must match id attributes. This clarifies semantics beyond the schema descriptions.

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 clearly states the tool renders a self-contained themed HTML page from body content, mentioning key features like themes and CSS classes. It distinguishes from sibling tools like render_mermaid or render_slides by focusing on HTML page rendering and referencing get_tool_guide for design system details.

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 provides clear when-to-use guidance (rendering a themed HTML page) and notes no Docker required. It gives important instructions about body_html content. However, it does not explicitly exclude use cases or list alternatives beyond the sibling tools.

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