coras_render_diagram

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 explicitly states that the tool returns the picture inline and writes it to disk, which are key side effects, and it adds the pixel-identical guarantee. However, it does not mention error conditions, file overwrite policy, or whether the source file is modified, though the render verb implies non-destructiveness.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action ('Render a .dgx file to PNG or SVG') and immediately followed by the key distinguishing detail (pixel-identical) and output behavior. Every word contributes value; there is no redundancy or filler.

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 moderately complex tool with six parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose, the main side effects, and the output format. It does not elaborate on return value structure or edge cases like multiple diagrams or temporary folder behavior, but the schema's high coverage compensates for parameter details. Overall, an agent likely has enough to invoke it correctly, though some behavioral nuances remain only in the schema.

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 83%, which is high, so the baseline is 3. The description does not explain individual parameters beyond what the schema already states; it only rephrases the purpose. It does add that output is written to disk and returned inline, which relates to 'out' and 'inline', but this adds limited meaning beyond the schema's descriptions.

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 states a specific verb ('Render'), a resource ('.dgx file'), and output formats (PNG or SVG). It also distinguishes the tool from siblings by emphasizing the editor's own renderer and pixel-identical output, making it clear this is the dedicated rendering tool among read, edit, create, validate, and open actions.

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 clearly implies when to use the tool (when a rendered image of a .dgx file is needed), but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. It does not reference sibling tools like coras_read_diagram or coras_edit_diagram, so the agent must infer the use case from the purpose alone.

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