Create tab card

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the card is interactive and tab content can be plain text, HTML, or code with a copy button, which gives some insight into behavior. However, it does not mention whether the operation is read-only, if permissions are needed, or whether it persists state. 'Render' suggests a UI action, so it is not misleading, but it leaves assumptions unaddressed.

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 two concise sentences that front-load the purpose and provide an illustrative example. Every sentence contributes meaning—first the core action and example, then the supported content types—with no wasted words or redundancy.

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 gives a solid overview of the tool's core functionality and content types, while the schema documents the remaining optional parameters (tutorTerms, contextActions) and safety details (HTML sanitization). Since an output schema exists and the schema covers the advanced options, the description is mostly sufficient, though it omits explicit mention of these interactive features.

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 40% (only tutorTerms and contextActions have descriptions). The description mentions content types (plain text, HTML, code) that map to tabs properties but does not explain the required 'title', optional 'subtitle', or the advanced interactive actions. It adds minimal value beyond what the schema already provides, and does not compensate for the undocumented top-level parameters.

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 'Render an interactive card with tabs', clearly stating the verb and resource, and distinguishes it from sibling card tools by focusing on tabs. The example of 'one tab per programming language, OS, or skill level' clarifies the intended use case and reinforces the tool's specific purpose.

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 implies when to use this tool: when presenting different contexts of the same subject (e.g., multiple programming languages, OS versions, skill levels). While it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, the example provides enough context to differentiate from other card creators like create_table_card.

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