Get render payload

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the payload is large and stashed out-of-band, and that the tool is internal. However, it does not describe side effects (e.g., read-only nature), error behavior, or access requirements, leaving some ambiguity for a tool that fetches data.

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, front-loaded with 'Internal' and wasting no words. It conveys the essential purpose and usage restriction efficiently.

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?

For a simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description and schema together cover the key aspects: what it fetches, the source of the ID, and the strong restriction against direct use. It could be more complete by describing the return format or what 'visualization payload' contains, but it is adequate for its simple nature.

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% with a clear description of render_id as coming from a render_ui result and being stashed out-of-band. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 fetches a large visualization payload for the render_ui viewer, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly marking itself as internal and not for agent use, though it doesn't name an alternative.

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 says 'Not for direct agent use,' providing a clear when-not-to-use directive. It also names the render_ui viewer as the intended consumer, giving context on how the tool fits into the workflow, effectively discouraging direct use and steering agents toward the viewer.

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