mermaid_preview

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes key behaviors: the tool opens a browser with live reload, auto-refreshes when updated, supports themes and customizations, and has limitations for sequence diagrams. However, it doesn't mention potential side effects like browser pop-ups or network requirements, leaving some behavioral aspects implicit.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds value: the first states the main action, the second details features, the third covers auto-refresh and sibling tool, and the last two provide critical usage notes. However, the structure could be slightly more streamlined by combining related points.

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 tool's complexity (8 parameters, live preview functionality) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description does a good job covering essential context: purpose, usage rules, key features, and limitations. It adequately guides an agent on how and when to use the tool, though it doesn't detail the preview interface or error handling, which are minor gaps.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 8 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal parameter-specific information beyond the schema, mentioning themes and custom backgrounds generically. This meets the baseline of 3 since the schema does the heavy lifting, but the description doesn't significantly enhance parameter understanding.

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 specific action ('Render a Mermaid diagram and open it in browser with live reload') and distinguishes it from its sibling tool ('Use mermaid_save to save to disk'). It explicitly mentions the resource (Mermaid diagram) and the verb (render/preview), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('Automatically use this tool whenever you create a Mermaid diagram for the user') and when not to use it for saving ('Use mermaid_save to save to disk'). It also includes a specific exclusion for sequence diagrams ('Sequence diagrams do not support style directives - avoid using 'style' statements in sequenceDiagram'), offering clear alternatives and limitations.

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