render_form

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears the full burden of disclosure. It explains that the render is based on declarative designer layout only, not runtime behavior, and mentions storage under a dated folder. This gives agents a good understanding of the tool's behavior, though it could further clarify if any side effects exist (e.g., file creation).

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 reasonably concise, consisting of two short paragraphs. The first sentence clearly states the main purpose, and the second paragraph adds necessary caveats. No unnecessary repetition or fluff.

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 (rendering and storage), the description adequately covers input, behavior, and limitations. The output schema is present (though not shown), so agents can rely on it for return values. Missing details like scale_mode options are a minor gap.

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?

The description adds meaning for the 'form' parameter by indicating it accepts form names or *.bas file paths, which is not in the schema. However, the 'scale_mode' parameter is not explained beyond its default value, leaving agents without guidance on what values are valid or how they affect output. With 0% schema description coverage, the description partially compensates but not fully.

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 renders an Access form/report layout to SVG and stores it under a dated artifact folder. This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from siblings list_forms (listing) and render_form_svg (likely just returning SVG without storage).

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 explains how to use the tool (pass form name or *.bas file path) and what it does not reflect (runtime VBA behavior), providing clear context for when to use it versus alternatives. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use sibling tools.

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