Render Formula Structure

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered structurally. The description adds a content contract (must preserve known conditions, numeric verification, and non-holding cases) but discloses nothing beyond annotations about rendering behavior, auth, or limits. This is additive but modest against an annotation-covered tool, and there is no contradiction.

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 front-loaded sentence with the core action first and the requirements after a semicolon; nothing is padded. It is perhaps over-compressed for a seven-required-parameter tool, but every clause carries content.

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 output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining what the rendered artifact is, yet it gives only a terse '符号卡+逐步运算图' sketch. For a seven-required-parameter tool with strict length caps on every field, the description is minimally adequate but leaves the return shape and depth of rendering unclear.

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 71%, so the schema largely documents the seven required fields already. The description loosely maps to three of them (已知条件、数字验算、不成立的情形 ≈ numeric_example, limitation, and conditions), adding only marginal meaning over the schema's own per-field 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 states a specific verb and output form: rendering a key formula as a symbol card plus a step-by-step computation diagram, which distinguishes it from render_concept_diagram and render_section_flow by content type. It is clear but never names or contrasts a sibling explicitly, so differentiation is inferred from the word 'formula' rather than stated.

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 text is a set of content requirements ('必修保留已知条件、数字验算及不成立的情形'), not guidance on when to choose this tool over the sibling render_* tools. There is no stated condition, trigger, or exclusion that tells an agent when render_formula_structure is the right pick versus render_evidence_prism.

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