render_shuzimi_figure

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility. It discloses deterministic generation, OSS upload behavior with login requirement, and return format. However, it does not cover error handling or rate limits, leaving some behavioral gaps.

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 well-structured with clear sections (purpose, structure spec, example, parameters, return, usage). Every sentence adds value, and the most critical information is front-loaded. No unnecessary content.

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 the complexity of the tool, the description covers input structure (puzzles with rows, op, cells), parameters, output fields, and usage context (blockJson, ingest). It also includes edge cases like 'HR' for horizontal lines and answer version handling. No output schema is provided, but the description compensates.

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% for top-level parameters, but the description thoroughly explains each parameter, including upload's OSS dependency and out_name's custom filename, and provides a complete example for puzzles. This compensates fully for the lack of schema 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 clearly states the tool generates PNG figures for 'shuzimi' puzzles with specific structural rules. It uses a specific verb ('render') and resource ('shuzimi figure'), but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like compose_variant_figure or render_prep_pack.

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 implies usage by mentioning how to use the output (e.g., oss_url for blockJson) and that the answer version requires replacing '?' and calling again. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusion criteria.

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