Skillforge Render API

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

Annotations are absent, placing the full burden on the description. However, it only states the action and does not disclose output format, potential side effects, performance characteristics, or requirements like network access for external resources.

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 exactly one sentence with no waste, immediately conveying the core action and resource. It is front-loaded and efficient.

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?

With 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description provides the essential purpose but omits what the returned image format is, how the output is returned, or any rendering caveats. It is adequate but not fully complete for a tool with no annotations.

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 input schema has 100% coverage with detailed descriptions (HTML max 100KB, width 320-1920, height 240-1080, defaults). The description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline score of 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 uses a specific verb 'Render' and clearly identifies the resource as 'an Open Graph image from an HTML snippet'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools render_pdf and screenshot_url, which target different output formats.

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 is provided about when to use this tool versus the alternatives. The single-sentence description lacks context, exclusions, or references to sibling tools, leaving the agent to infer usage scenarios.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states the core function and does not reveal any side effects, limitations (e.g., one-of constraint), rate limits, or expected output format beyond 'PDF'. This is insufficient for a tool that could involve significant processing.

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 a single, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the essential information. It contains no filler or redundant content, earning full marks for efficiency.

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 tool is relatively simple with a well-documented schema, but the description lacks any contextual detail about when to use it, how it differs from siblings, or behavioral expectations. The mutual exclusivity of url/html is only stated in the schema, not in the description. For a no-annotation tool, this is adequate but leaves clear 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 input schema provides 100% coverage of all four parameters with descriptive text. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already documents, such as the viewport constraints or the exactly-one-of url/html requirement. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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's function: 'Render a URL or an HTML snippet to a PDF.' It uses a specific verb ('render') and specifies both input types and the output format, distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'screenshot_url' and 'render_og' by its PDF output.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or scenarios where other tools might be more appropriate. It simply states what it does without contextual usage advice.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states the core action and omits critical details such as return format, cost implications (e.g., fullPage costing 2 units), or the mutual exclusivity of url/html.

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 a single, direct sentence with no redundant information. It is highly concise and well-structured.

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 six parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too sparse to offer sufficient context for correct tool selection and invocation. It lacks usage scenario details and behavioral clarifications, especially with sibling tools present.

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 input schema already provides detailed descriptions for all six parameters (100% coverage), so the description's mention of 'URL or HTML snippet' adds no new semantic meaning beyond what the schema already conveys.

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 'Render a screenshot of a URL or an HTML snippet' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly indicating the tool's function. It inherently distinguishes itself from sibling tools like render_pdf and render_og, which target different output types.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools render_og or render_pdf. It does not mention alternatives, exclusions, or context-specific scenarios.

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