render_interaction

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It discloses that it renders, simulates interactions, and screenshots, but does not mention any side effects, resource implications, or limitations (e.g., whether it destroys previous state, requires authentication, or has rate limits). The description is adequate but lacks depth beyond the obvious.

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 sentences long, with the first sentence stating the core action and the second providing use cases. It is front-loaded, concise, and every sentence adds value. No unnecessary words.

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 the tool's purpose, actions, and example use cases. It does not mention the return format (e.g., that it returns an image), but the tool's name and context imply a screenshot. Given the complexity (5 parameters, interactions array) and no output schema, the description is mostly complete but could mention the output type.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, so the schema already explains all parameters effectively. The description adds no additional meaning beyond summarizing the interaction types (click, hover, focus, type) already present in the enum. With high schema coverage, this is a baseline score.

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 renders a component, simulates user interactions, and screenshots the result. It also lists specific use cases (hover states, dropdowns, etc.), but does not explicitly differentiate from similar sibling tools like render_component or render_matrix, which limits its purpose clarity.

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 includes 'Use this to verify hover states, dropdowns, modals, form inputs,' providing explicit guidance on when to use the tool. However, it lacks information on when not to use it or alternatives among the sibling tools, such as using render_component for static rendering or audit_a11y for accessibility checks.

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