get_render_results

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by stating the tool is for listing, the types of results (images, PDFs, screenshots), and pagination behavior. No contradiction exists; the description complements annotations effectively.

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 three concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by clear bullet points. Every sentence adds necessary information without redundancy. Excellent structure.

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 tool lacks an output schema, so the description should explain return values more thoroughly. It mentions result types but not structure or pagination response details (e.g., total count). While adequate for a simple list tool with good annotations, the missing return format context prevents a higher score.

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%, and the description restates parameter functions (filtering by template/batch, pagination with defaults). It does not add new meanings beyond what the schema provides, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool 'lists past render results (images, PDFs, screenshots)' in the user's account, using specific verbs and resource types. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_render_result' (single result) and creation/deletion tools, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 specifies when to use the tool (to list past render results) and includes options for filtering by 'template' or 'batch' and pagination. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or contrast with alternatives, but the sibling list implies differentiation. A clear usage context is provided.

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