display_schema

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the local-browser rendering, live-reload behavior, input precedence, and fallback to the bundled schema. It does not mention non-destructiveness or return behavior explicitly, but for a rendering tool the disclosed behavior is reasonably transparent.

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 three focused sentences with the core purpose front-loaded. It avoids restating parameter descriptions and every sentence adds useful information: what it renders, how inputs are selected, and how the browser view updates.

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 viewer tool with five parameters and a nested `context` object, the description plus rich schema descriptions cover input modes, fallback behavior, and live reload. No output schema exists, but the tool's visible output is the browser diagram, so return-value details are not critical here. Minor gaps like persistence or close behavior do not materially hurt usability.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds cross-parameter meaning beyond the schema by stating that `dbml` takes precedence over `filePath` and that supplying neither falls back to the bundled project schema. This clarifies relationships the individual parameter descriptions do not fully convey.

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 names a specific verb ('Render'), resource ('database schema'), and output form ('interactive, dbdiagram.io-style ER diagram'), which is clearly distinct from the sibling get_schema_viewer_status. The added details about draggable cards, relationship lines, and pan/zoom make the tool's function 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 gives explicit input-selection guidance: use `dbml` for raw DBML, `filePath` for a .dbml file, and neither for the bundled schema. However, it does not position this tool against get_schema_viewer_status or state any when-not-to-use conditions, so the guidance stops short of full alternative routing.

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