build_visualization

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint), the description discloses key behaviors: the output is self-contained with no network/external resources, the visualization adapts because all data is optional, and it renders specific components (measured flight, drills grouped by range/home). This gives the agent a solid mental model.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and returns format, then dives into data shape. While lengthy, the detail is necessary for a single complex parameter. The reference to a 'trackman-visualizer prompt' is slightly cryptic but does not undermine clarity.

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?

Given one parameter with poor schema coverage, the description fully defines the input structure and output format. Annotations already cover safety, so no extra behavioral safety info is needed. The tool is complex, and the description leaves no critical gaps.

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?

The input schema only describes 'data' as an object with additionalProperties true, giving zero field-level detail. The description compensates fully by enumerating the complete data shape, including nested shots, swing, targets, and blocks arrays with their fields. This is essential for the agent to construct valid input.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Render a coaching diagnosis into a self-contained animated HTML page.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like trackman or session_analysis by focusing on visualization output. The return type and artifact context further clarify its unique role.

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 provides clear context: use this when you have a coaching diagnosis and need a standalone HTML page ready for an artifact. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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