render_checklist

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool is a pure projection, returns structured rows plus a completeness tally and Markdown table, and that views affect columns. It could go further on edge cases like conflicting inputs, but the core behavior is clearly communicated.

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 dense but efficiently structured: purpose, detailed output/views, return artifacts, input options, and a final behavioral boundary. Every sentence adds value and the front-loading lets an agent quickly identify the tool's purpose.

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 that an output schema exists and covers return shape, the description appropriately focuses on input selection, view modes, and the pure-projection guarantee. This is enough for an agent to decide when and how to invoke the tool.

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, and it does. It explains both view values ('enriched' and 'official') with column-level effects and clarifies the two possible input sources: assessment or manuscript_id. It does not fully document the structure of the assessment object, but all parameters receive meaningful 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 begins with a specific verb and resource: 'Render a finalized assessment as the completed TARGET checklist form'. It details the 21 published items, 39 leaf rows, the Location-reported column, and clarifies the output type, clearly distinguishing this from scoring and document-rendering siblings. The explicit 'pure projection — no re-scoring' further disambiguates it from assessment tools.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: pass either a full assessment object or a manuscript_id assessed earlier in the session. It also signals that this is not a scoring tool. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives such as render_checklist_docx or render_checklist_html when a different output format is needed.

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