render_form_svg

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

No annotations are provided. The description only mentions 'Same layout caveats as render_form' without elaborating on what those caveats entail. There is no discussion of side effects, required permissions, or output specifics beyond the fact that it returns SVG markup.

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 two sentences plus a brief caveat reference. It is front-loaded with the core functionality and provides a clear use case with no extraneous information.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the tool's parameters (especially 'scale_mode') are completely undocumented in the description. The reference to layout caveats is vague. For a tool with two parameters and no annotations, the description is insufficient for confident usage.

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?

Input schema has 0% coverage for parameter descriptions. The description only implicitly references the 'form' parameter but does not explain valid values or the 'scale_mode' parameter at all. The description adds no additional meaning to the schema.

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 markup text. It distinguishes itself from the sibling 'render_form' by emphasizing the utility for inspecting exact coordinates and sizes rather than just viewing an image.

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 a clear use case ('when you want to inspect exact control coordinates, sizes and captions') and references 'Same layout caveats as render_form' to guide usage. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use, but the context is strong.

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