render_architecture

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

With no annotations, the description partially covers behavior: it says layout is automatic and returns file paths. Missing details on side effects like file overwriting, default output location, or the fact that it writes to disk.

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 concise sentences front-load the main purpose and key constraints. No redundant or unnecessary information.

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?

Given the complexity with 13 parameters and no output schema, the description is minimal. It doesn't mention the need to call get_authoring_guide to learn the DSL, nor does it hint at default style or how to specify diagram content.

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 92%, so parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description adds no new param-specific meaning beyond what's already in the schema, meeting the baseline.

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 draws an IT architecture and saves as SVG, mentioning optional multi-style output. However, it does not distinguish from sibling 'render_all_styles' which also generates multiple styles, leaving potential ambiguity.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives like validate_architecture or preview_architecture. The instruction to not supply coordinates is a usage rule but not a context for selection.

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