Render Evidence Prism

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety and idempotency profile is fully covered. The description adds the conceptual output structure (three evidence facets), which is useful, but says nothing about rendering behavior, output form, or limits beyond what annotations carry.

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 tightly written sentence with the verb+resource front-loaded and the three facets enumerated efficiently. Nothing is redundant, though the extreme brevity leaves no room for the routing context an agent would also want.

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?

For a read-only rendering tool with five fully documented required parameters and a complete safety annotation set, the description is nearly sufficient; 'draw' plus the named facets convey what is produced. It could say more about the output artifact, but no output schema exists and none is strictly required here.

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% with per-field descriptions and length bounds, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description names the three content facets (look_at/supports/cannot_conclude) but adds no syntax, format, or constraint detail beyond what the schema already provides.

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 states a specific verb (绘制/draw) and a specific resource (图表证据三棱镜/chart evidence prism), and unpacks it into three concrete facets: what to look at, what it supports, what it cannot conclude. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling render_* tools (render_paper_map, render_section_flow, etc.), so it stops short of a 5.

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 gives no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative-selection guidance. '阻止过度推断' (prevent over-inference) hints at the goal but not at the scenario or the sibling it competes with, leaving the agent to infer when to pick this over render_concept_diagram or render_paper_map.

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