render_section_flowGenerate a 2–7 step flowchart for a paper section, showing each step's task and how steps connect, as a PNG image.
画当前章节的 2–7 步结构流程图，含每步任务与承接关系，返回真正的 PNG 图片。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| stages | Yes | ||
| source_note | Yes | 原文节号/页码及不确定性说明 | |
| current_index | No | ||
| relationships | Yes | ||
| section_title | Yes | 原文真实章节标题 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v5.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the genuinely useful disclosure that it returns a real PNG image (important with no output schema, distinguishing it from a tool that merely returns a spec), plus the 2–7 step constraint.
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 that packs the output type, the step range, and the per-step content 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?
For a 5-parameter tool with no output schema, stating the PNG return is a good start, but current_index (a 0–6 index into the stages) is left entirely undefined, and there is no note on how the input stages/relationships shape the rendered layout. Adequate but with a real gap.
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 only 40%, so the description carries extra burden. It does map '每步任务' to the per-stage fields and '承接关系' to relationships, and restates the 2–7 stage bound, but current_index and section_title semantics are never explained in either place.
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 resource (画…流程图 / draw a section flow diagram), bounds the scope to 2–7 steps, and names the content carried by each step (task + connecting relationships). It is clearly distinguishable from render_formula_structure or render_concept_diagram by resource, though it never explicitly names those siblings.
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?
There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of the sibling render_* tools, even though the family contains four close alternatives. Usage is only implied by the resource name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.