renderWidget

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds valuable behavioral details: it returns a distinct output structure, explains what the output includes (rendered HTML with auto-wrapped style/script), and notes that CSS/JS are omitted if empty. No contradictions.

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 well-structured with bold headings, bullet points, and clear sections. Despite length, every sentence adds value—no redundancy. Information is front-loaded with purpose and warning, and structure aids readability.

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 no output schema, the description thoroughly explains the return format (distinct envelope with status, message, name, output) and details output contents. It also references related tools for further context. The tool is a simple read-only operation, and the description covers all necessary aspects.

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 has 2 parameters, with 50% description coverage (widget_id lacks description). The description adds that the tool requires either widget_id or widget_name, and notes that widget_name lookup is case-sensitive and must match exactly. This adds necessary clarity beyond 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?

The description clearly states the tool renders a widget to HTML and explicitly marks it as a diagnostic tool only, distinguishing it from production usage. It also mentions it returns BD's rendered HTML output, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 explicitly states when to use (when user reports a broken widget, for troubleshooting render pipeline) and when not to use (never for production delivery). It references a specific rule and lists related tools (getWidget, updateWidget) for context.

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