renforge_get_displayable_bounds

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits, but it only mentions that the image tag must be 'shown' (implying a prerequisite) and that coordinates are 'logical.' It does not explain failure modes (e.g., what happens if the tag isn't shown), coordinate origin, or relationship to screen coordinates. This leaves meaningful gaps but does add some context beyond the tool name.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without redundancy. It is appropriately sized for a simple query tool, and every word contributes to understanding the tool's function.

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 is simple and has an output schema, which likely explains the return format, so the description does not need to detail return values. However, it lacks crucial usage context such as when the tag must be currently displayed, how to specify the project path, and how logical coordinates map to the screen. Given the absence of annotations, these omissions make the description only partially complete.

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, but it only clarifies that 'tag' refers to a shown image tag. Project_path and layer remain entirely unexplained. Given three parameters and two required, the description adds minimal semantic value for most parameters.

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's function: 'Report where a shown image tag was rendered, in logical coordinates.' It uses a specific verb ('Report') and resource ('shown image tag'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_ui_element_bounds by focusing on image tags rather than UI elements. The phrase 'logical coordinates' adds precision about the output format.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. Sibling tools such as get_ui_element_bounds or find_image_on_screen exist, but there is no explicit instruction on which tool to choose for which scenario.

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