affinity_render_spread

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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so safety is handled. Beyond that the description says nothing about what comes back — raw bytes, a file path, or an inline image — nor about resolution, format options, or failure behavior for an out-of-range index.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is compact but arguably too terse given the missing return-value information.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations about output, the description leaves the most important question unanswered: what the caller receives from a render call. For a rendering tool this is a substantial omission.

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 0%, so the description must carry the parameter load. It adds a useful clarifier that the spread index is zero-based, but does not explain how document_session_uuid relates to an open session or what a spread is in this context.

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?

States a concrete verb ('Render'), a concrete resource ('spread in a document session'), and the output format ('JPEG'). It is distinguishable from affinity_render_selection by naming 'spread', though it never explicitly contrasts with it.

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 indication of when to use this versus affinity_render_selection or affinity_export, nor any prerequisite such as needing an open document session first. The agent must infer the routing from the sibling names alone.

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