render_view_image

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses important behaviors: blank screen heuristic detection, return of image even on error (severity==error), and filter application as vf_ parameters. It does not mention permissions or side effects, but for a read-like rendering tool, this is reasonably transparent.

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 concise (5 sentences) and front-loaded with the core purpose. It avoids redundancy and provides all necessary information without fluff. Slightly longer than ideal due to two paragraphs, but still efficient.

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 output schema and no annotations, the description adequately covers the tool's functional behavior: input parameters, output format (JSON + PNG image block), and error handling (blank screen doesn't fail). It misses some edge case details (invalid view_id, permissions), but overall it provides sufficient context for the agent to use the tool correctly.

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 parameters. The description adds minor value by explaining that filters become `vf_` parameters in the request, but this is also stated in the schema. For high_res, no extra context beyond schema. Therefore, the description provides limited additional meaning beyond the schema, consistent with baseline 3.

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 action ('Renderiza o PNG de uma view') and the outputs (diagnóstico + bloco de imagem MCP). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'render_workbook_pdf' by specifying it renders a single view rather than a workbook. The purpose is unambiguous and specific.

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 (providing view_id, optional filters, high_res) but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., render_workbook_pdf for full workbook). There is no when-not-to-use guidance, leaving the agent to infer based on resource type. This is adequate but lacks explicit differentiation.

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