viz.render_subnetwork

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'interactive HTML' and 'LLM-added edges highlighted' but fails to disclose whether it writes files (hinted by optional out_path), requires authentication, or has side effects. The read-only assumption is implicit, not explicit.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the core functionality. However, given the tool's complexity (6 parameters, no output schema), it sacrifices necessary detail for brevity.

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 6 parameters, no output schema, and no behavioral annotations, the description is grossly incomplete. It does not explain parameter roles, return value, or how to use the tool effectively.

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 0%, and the description provides no details about any of the 6 parameters (including 3 required ones). It adds no meaning beyond their names and types in the schema.

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?

Description states a specific verb ('render') and resource ('regulatory subnetwork with LLM-added edges highlighted'), and it distinguishes from sibling tools like viz.render_metabolic_map and viz.render_ppi_metabolic which focus on metabolic or PPI networks.

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 implies usage for regulatory subnetworks, providing context, but does not explicitly state when to use or avoid this tool, nor mention alternatives. No guidance on when-not-to-use.

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