render_script

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does a decent job: it discloses the temp-file fallback when output_path is empty, that a seed is injected as `set seed N`, and that timeout aborts runaway scripts. It omits whether an existing file at output_path is overwritten and says nothing about sandboxing or resource limits for script execution.

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?

Purpose is stated in a single opening line, followed by a tight args list and a one-line return summary. No restated boilerplate and no wasted sentences.

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?

Output schema exists and the description still summarizes the return shape (path, counts, bbox), so return values are covered. The remaining gap is over-write behavior on output_path and lack of routing guidance versus preview_script/validate_script, which matters for a tool that writes to disk 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate entirely, and it does: all four parameters get meaningful explanations beyond their titles (full source text, empty-string temp-file behavior with path returned, reproducibility semantics of seed, abort semantics of timeout). This is exactly what a low-coverage schema needs.

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?

Names a specific verb+resource+output format: 'Render EisenScript to a Wavefront OBJ mesh'. An agent immediately knows what goes in (EisenScript source) and what comes out (an OBJ file). It is clearly distinct from sibling tools like preview_script or validate_script, though it does not name them.

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 implies usage (you have EisenScript and want a mesh file) but never states when to use this instead of preview_script, validate_script, or analyze_script, which are the obvious alternatives in the sibling list. No prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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