render

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the output is 'publication-quality' but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like processing time, file size implications, error handling for invalid source, or whether it's a read-only operation. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that generates images.

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 a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and avoids unnecessary details, making it easy to scan and understand 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?

Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimal but covers the basic purpose. However, for a tool with 3 parameters that generates visual output, it lacks details on output format specifics, error conditions, or performance considerations, making it only adequate for simple use cases.

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 the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds no meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining how 'source' should be formatted or what 'publication-quality' entails in terms of 'quality' settings. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 specific action ('render'), the resource ('EN dependency graph'), and the output format ('publication-quality SVG image'). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'analyze_system' or 'trace' by focusing on visualization rather than analysis or tracing.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'compose' or 'evolve'. It doesn't mention prerequisites, such as needing valid EN source code, or exclusions, like not being suitable for non-graph data.

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