rednote_make_cards

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and largely meets it: it discloses local execution ('on this computer'), the absence of account side effects ('Never touches RedNote'), and the return contract (absolute paths). It omits where files land on disk and whether re-runs overwrite existing images, which matters for a tool that writes files.

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?

Three dense sentences, front-loaded with the action and format, then the safety note, then the return-and-consumer contract plus card structure. Every clause carries information; nothing is filler.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description appropriately states the return (absolute paths). Combined with the card-composition rules, an agent has enough to invoke it correctly; minor gaps remain around output location and overwrite behavior, and theme selection is left to the enum alone.

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 only 50% (theme is documented, cards is not), so the description must compensate – and it does, adding semantics the schema cannot express: card 1 is the cover, cover holds a short title plus 0–2 lines, later cards up to 8 lines, and '\n' can break a Chinese title. The nested title/footer length limits and theme option meanings are left to the schema.

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 and resource ('Render text-card images') plus the exact output format (1080x1440 PNG, 3:4), so the agent knows precisely what artifact it produces. It is clearly distinguishable from every sibling, none of which generate images, and it names the downstream consumer rednote_create_post.

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?

Gives a clear use case ('for notes without photos') and routing ('Returns absolute paths to pass as images to rednote_create_post'), which tells the agent exactly where this fits in a workflow. It stops short of explicit exclusions or alternatives (e.g., when to prefer video vs cards), so it is clear context rather than full when/when-not guidance.

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