digital_export_rendered_image

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does substantial work: it reveals the SVG export pipeline and the PNG conversion process, including the dependency on DIGITAL_SVG_CONVERTER or rsvg-convert/magick/convert/inkscape. It does not mention output file side effects, overwrite behavior, or error handling, but the disclosed conversion details go well beyond the schema.

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 with no filler. The main purpose is front-loaded, and the second sentence efficiently packs the format pipeline details and external converter dependencies. Every clause earns its place.

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?

The description covers the core format behavior and conversion pipeline, but it omits output_path semantics, return values (no output schema), timeout behavior, and explicit guidance for choosing among siblings. Given the absence of annotations and 0% schema description coverage, more context would be needed for fully confident invocation.

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. It adds real meaning for 'format' (SVG vs PNG) and 'pixel_width' (requested conversion width), but it leaves 'path', 'output_path', and 'timeout_seconds' unexplained beyond their schema types and defaults. Partial compensation is provided, not complete.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Export a rendered image of a .dig circuit,' which clearly states what the tool does. It also differentiates format behavior (SVG vs PNG) and distinguishes itself from related export tools by focusing on rendered image output.

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 explains when to use SVG vs PNG and mentions the default format, providing clear context for format selection. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool instead of siblings like digital_render_circuit or digital_export_simulation_image, leaving the alternative-selection guidance implied rather than explicit.

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