render_html

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It explains that external resources (CDN fonts, images) load normally, and mentions the waitForResult parameter's default behavior. It does not detail error handling or exact return format, but it adequately covers key aspects.

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 consists of two concise sentences with no extraneous information. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and includes a critical prerequisite, making it efficient for an AI agent to parse.

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 tool's complexity (5 parameters, nested object, enum, no output schema), the description covers the primary action, prerequisites, and a key behavior (external resource loading). It lacks explicit mention of return format (URL vs base64) but the schema's waitForResult description hints at it. Overall, it is largely sufficient.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema definitions; it does not provide additional context or usage examples for parameters. The tool logic is clear from the schema alone.

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 purpose: 'Render a raw HTML string... to a screenshot image.' It specifies common use cases (email template, certificate, report card) and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like screenshot_web (URL-based) and screenshot_mobile (mobile emulation) by focusing on raw HTML input.

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 includes a prerequisite ('Requires STARTER plan') and implies when to use this tool over siblings (when you have raw HTML vs URL). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide direct comparisons to alternatives.

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