os_apps_render_route_planner

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds no additional behavioral context—no mention of side effects, return format, or limitations. It neither contradicts annotations nor enriches them beyond the basic 'open widget' action.

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 sentence, which is concise, but it is under-specified. It does not front-load any useful detail and lacks the substance needed for a tool with 17 parameters. Conciseness without content is not helpful.

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 17 parameters, no parameter descriptions, and no explanation of the widget's purpose or output, the description is far from complete. Even with annotations covering read-only/idempotent safety, an agent cannot determine correct invocation without additional context.

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 0% for 17 parameters, and the description provides zero guidance on parameter meaning, format, or relationships. With no parameter documentation anywhere, the description fails entirely to compensate for the schema gap.

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 clear verb ('Open') and resource ('MCP-Apps route planner widget'), and the resource name distinguishes it from sibling render tools (boundary explorer, feature inspector, etc.). However, it does not elaborate on what the widget does or what 'route planner' entails, leaving the purpose only partially clear.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions. An agent would have no way to decide between this and other os_apps_render_* tools based on the description.

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