render_paper_mapTurn verified paper section roles into PNG argument flowcharts, requiring source notes so titles and causal arrows are not fabricated.
把已核实的论文章节职责转换为可见 PNG 论证流程图；不得臆造标题或因果箭头。输入来源注释必填。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| nodes | Yes | ||
| title | Yes | 简洁图标题 | |
| subtitle | Yes | 一行图的任务 | |
| source_note | Yes | 原文定位与不能确定的内容。必须提供。 | |
| current_index | No | ||
| relationships | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v5.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive). The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond them: the output is a visible PNG image, titles and causal arrows must not be fabricated, and a source note is mandatory. It still omits error behavior and output limitations, but it adds real value on top of 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?
A single dense sentence with the purpose front-loaded and two semicolon-separated constraints. Every clause earns its place and there is no filler, though the telegraphic style is terse.
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 six-parameter rendering tool with no output schema, the description correctly discloses the PNG output format and the mandatory source_note, but leaves the meaning and interplay of relationships, nodes, current_index, and subtitle unaddressed, so it is only partially complete.
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 only 50%, so the description must carry more weight, but it only reinforces that source_note is required and hints that titles must be real (matching the nodes.title 'cannot fabricate' constraint). It says nothing about nodes, relationships, current_index, or subtitle structure, leaving half the parameter surface unexplained.
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+resource: converting verified paper section responsibilities into a visible PNG argument-flow diagram. This is concrete enough to distinguish it from most siblings, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the similar-sounding render_section_flow.
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 constraints (no fabricated titles or causal arrows; source_note is mandatory) which imply the tool should be used only on verified content, but it never states when to choose this over render_section_flow, render_evidence_prism, or the other render_* siblings. Usage is implied, not directed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.