Show example scenes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds the behavioral insight that calling with 'name' returns a full renderable scene, which goes beyond the schema. However, it does not detail what the output looks like or that it should be passed to render_diagram, though the token 'render_diagram' hints at integration. With annotations covering safety, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 concise with no wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose, immediately follows with usage guidance, and ends with a clear list of available examples. Every sentence contributes meaning.

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 the tool's low complexity (1 parameter, no required ones, enums documented, output schema exists), the description is largely complete. It explains the tool's role, how to invoke it, and the available options. A minor gap is not explicitly stating that the output scene is meant for render_diagram, but the sibling context and the phrase 'pass straight to render_diagram' cover this adequately.

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 schema already documents the single parameter 'name' with enum values. The description adds value by explaining the two usage modes (no args vs with name) and lists the available examples in the enum. However, it repeats what the enum provides, offering only incremental context. Baseline 3 is correct.

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 defines the tool's purpose with a specific verb-resource pair: 'Return complete, working example scenes.' It distinguishes the tool from siblings by stating these are examples to help when unsure about schema usage, unlike render_diagram or get_scene which serve different functions.

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 this tool ('when you are unsure how to express something'), advises against alternatives ('guessing at the schema'), and provides a behavioral tip ('Copy the closest example and adapt it - that is faster and more reliable'). It also clarifies the two calling modes: no arguments for catalogue, or with name for a full scene.

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