render_preview

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the write behavior (output_path, overwrite), the alternate return mode (returning markup when output_path is empty), and the promise that geometry matches the .bpmn. This is strong and decision-relevant transparency.

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 compact and front-loaded: a two-sentence purpose statement followed by a clean argument list. Every sentence earns its place and the structure is easy for an agent to scan.

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?

The description covers output modes, overwrite behavior, and all parameters, and an output schema exists. The main gap is that, with zero required parameters and both file_path and spec defaulted, the description never explicitly states that one of them must be supplied.

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%, and the description fully compensates by explaining all four parameters with functional meaning: .bpmn file input, an in-memory spec, output location with fallback behavior, and overwrite semantics. The mutual-exclusivity note adds important semantic value 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 opens with a specific action ('Draw the diagram as an SVG') and a clear purpose ('checked without opening Bizagi Modeler'). It is specific about the resource and output format, but it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like bizagi_import_bpmn or export_documentation.

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 gives a clear use case — verifying a diagram before import via 'what you see is what imports' — and notes that file_path and spec are mutually exclusive. It does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over related siblings or when not to use it, so it stops short of a top-tier score.

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