render_hierarchy_html

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses safety constraints (path resolution, workspace authorization), default output behavior, and that inline sources avoid filesystem access. It does not detail error behavior or output formatting, but the existence of an output schema shifts some burden.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, then precise constraints. No redundant words or filler. Each sentence adds necessary context.

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 core purpose, input flexibility, path constraints, and default output location. With an output schema present and detailed parameter schemas, this is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly. Minor gaps like exact error handling are not critical here.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond schema by explaining source accepts inline mappings/sequences/JSON/YAML or an absolute path, and clarifies path requirements for output_folder, themes_folder, and the default output directory when only a filename is given.

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 starts with 'Render safe self-contained hierarchy HTML and optionally save it' — a specific verb + resource + outcome. It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like create_hierarchy_plan or verify_yaml by focusing on rendering HTML.

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?

Provides clear context about when to use: to render hierarchy HTML. It adds meaningful usage conditions (inline data require no filesystem access, paths must be absolute under workspace roots, default output location). However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions relative to siblings.

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