render_preview

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose real behavioral traits: white background, longest side scaled to max_size px, and that `ids`/`only_ids` change what is drawn. It omits any statement about permissions, rendering cost, failure modes, or how `area` affects output, leaving meaningful gaps for a mutation-free but resource-producing tool.

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?

Two tight sentences with the output format and default background front-loaded, then the zoom controls. Dense but every clause carries information; the only cost is that the branching between `region`, `ids`, and `only_ids` is compressed into one run-on sentence.

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, but the description compensates by describing the returned artifact (PNG, white background, max_size scaling). The main remaining gap is the undocumented `doc_id` and `area` parameters, which matter for correct invocation.

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, and it explains four of six parameters well: `region` as [x, y, w, h] in user units, `ids` as zooming to the area around them with everything still visible, `only_ids` as drawing only those objects, and `max_size` as the longest-side pixel cap. It says nothing about `area` (page vs drawing) or `doc_id`, leaving two parameters undocumented anywhere.

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 specific verb+resource ('Render to a PNG image'), and the phrase 'you can look at' signals this is a preview artifact rather than a deliverable export, which implicitly separates it from the `export` sibling. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with `export` or `inspect`, so an agent must infer the distinction.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance or named alternative; the closest signal is the implicit framing 'you can look at', which suggests a visual-check use case. Nothing states when to prefer this over `inspect`, `export`, or `inkscape_info`, so usage is implied rather than directed.

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