render_preview

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

The description discloses the core behavior, output format, dimensions, and return value, but no annotations are provided to cover safety or side effects. It does not mention file overwrite behavior, filesystem side effects, authentication needs, or what 'current screen' requires, leaving behavioral gaps.

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 sentence with no filler, front-loading the action and output details. Every word contributes necessary information, and the structure is easy to parse quickly.

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?

For a simple one-parameter tool, the description covers the main action and return value, but with no annotations and no parameter explanation it leaves open important details: whether the file overwrites existing content, how the output path is resolved, and whether any screen state must be active. This is adequate but not fully 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% and the description never mentions output_path, so the sole parameter is left to inference from its name and default. The phrase 'return its absolute path' hints at output handling but does not clarify how output_path relates to the returned path or what happens when it is omitted.

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 names a specific verb ('Render'), a clear resource ('the current screen'), and a precise output ('758x1024 PNG'). It also states the return value ('absolute path'), making the tool's purpose unambiguous and distinct from siblings like list_screens or activate_screen.

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 implies usage when a preview of the current screen is needed, but it provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and does not compare against sibling tools. An agent must infer the appropriate context from the verb and resource.

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