compare

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden; it does usefully disclose that the operation 'does not change the recipe' (a read-only, non-mutating guarantee). However, it omits what happens when the combined axes exceed 12 tiles (error vs. truncation), what the return value is (an image? a reference?), and whether all axes are optional and what happens with none supplied.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and scope, followed by the combinatorial rule and the non-mutation guarantee. Every sentence adds information an agent needs; nothing is padded.

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?

For a 4-parameter, all-optional tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should say what is produced and how the 12-tile cap is enforced. It covers the input composition well but leaves the output side and the over-cap behavior undocumented, which is a meaningful gap when no output schema exists.

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 100%, so parameter meaning is already documented, but the description adds genuinely new semantics the schema lacks: axes are combined as a cartesian product, and there is a hard ceiling of 12 tiles that constrains how many values per axis are sensible. The example ('3 films x 2 exposures = 6 tiles') makes the combinatorics unambiguous.

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 gives a specific verb and resource — 'Render a labelled contact sheet of variations of the current recipe' — plus a concrete scope (up to 12 tiles) and the combinatorial behavior of the axes. It is clearly distinct from siblings like develop, frame, or loupe, though it never explicitly names a sibling to differentiate against.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer you call this when you want to visually compare film/paper/exposure variations, and the example '3 films x 2 exposures = 6 tiles' hints at how to compose the call. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or pointer to an alternative (e.g. single-variation tools) if the comparison exceeds the tile cap.

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