Render street cross-section

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It states the tool renders deterministically, suggesting a read-only, pure output operation. However, it lacks explicit statements about side effects, idempotency, or resource usage, which would improve transparency.

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, front-loaded with purpose, and contains no wasted words. It efficiently conveys the tool's role and 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?

Given the complexity (nested parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is too brief. It omits return value format (e.g., SVG URL or data), prerequisites, and details about the 'Street Generator visual style', leaving the agent with insufficient guidance.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does not explain any parameters or their meanings beyond what the schema structure provides. The complex nested schema (e.g., config, style) is left for the agent to interpret without added guidance.

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 it renders a StreetConfig as an illustrated SVG cross-section, specifying included elements (people, cars, trees). It also distinguishes from sibling tools (build_share_url and import_street_from_osm) by noting this tool draws the config deterministically in a visual style.

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 provides context by stating that Claude produces the StreetConfig and this tool draws it, implying use after obtaining a config. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives to siblings, leaving some ambiguity.

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