Display Master Detail

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It does not disclose behavioral traits like side effects, permissions, or limitations (e.g., rendering constraints). As a display tool, it likely has no destructive behavior, but the description fails to state this.

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?

Description is two sentences plus a tagline, with no wasted words. It front-loads the core function and efficiently covers layout, content types, and use cases.

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 intended use and parameter-purpose mapping adequately, but given the complexity (6 params, nested objects, no output schema), it lacks details on default selection behavior, return value, or interaction with other display tools. Sufficient for a basic understanding but not fully comprehensive.

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%, providing strong baselines. The description adds context about detail content types (table, image, list, text/HTML) matching the oneOf schema, and mentions layout orientation, which adds semantic value beyond raw 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 displays a master-detail view with a list and detail panel, listing specific content types (tables, images, lists, text/HTML) and use cases (browsing, comparing, navigating). It distinguishes itself from sibling display tools by being composite.

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 suggests use cases ('perfect for browsing collections...'), giving clear context. It does not provide when-not-to-use or alternative tool names, but the sibling list helps differentiate.

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