design_render

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

No annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses two behavioral traits — headless real-browser rendering and that external network is blocked by default — but omits cost/latency, permission needs, and what allow_network changes.

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?

A single dense sentence with the core capability and outputs front-loaded. No filler, though it could have spent a few more words on the high-value undocumented parameters.

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?

A 9-parameter render tool with no annotations and no output schema needs more explanation than this. The description names outputs but leaves most parameters and the composite result shape unexplained.

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?

With 9 parameters and 0% schema description coverage, the description explains almost nothing. 'Several widths' and 'external network blocked by default' gesture at widths and allow_network, but target, surface, checks, wait_ms, design_md, allow, and inline_image remain undocumented.

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?

Specific verb ('Render') and resource ('a page in a real headless browser') plus the concrete artifacts produced (screenshots, measured design rules, accessibility snapshot). An agent can tell this is a visual render/eval tool, though it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from sibling design_inspect or design_lint.

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 statement of when to use this versus design_inspect, design_lint, or design_search, and no prerequisites beyond the network note. The outputs imply the use case but there is no explicit guidance or exclusion.

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