legal_render

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the conditional block handling (keep/drop the consent.health HealthKit section) and that placeholders are substituted, but says nothing about overwriting existing files, required permissions, or idempotency.

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 dense sentence with the action and target front-loaded, followed by the config detail and the conditional-block caveat. Efficient, though the heavy parenthetical nesting makes it slightly harder to scan.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be described, and the file targets are specified. However, for a file-writing render tool it omits whether existing files are overwritten, whether it creates directories, and the accepted keys for `values`.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains that `values` fills product placeholders, adding some meaning beyond the schema, but `app_dir` (the required parameter) is entirely undocumented and the shape/keys of `values` remain unexplained.

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?

States a specific verb ('Fill') and resource ('the legal sources') with concrete target paths (store/privacy/*.md, backend/PRIVACY.md). The verb distinguishes it from siblings like legal_check and legal_verify, though it never names them explicitly.

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?

No explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternatives are given. The phrase 'from the spec + config' hints at the precondition, but nothing routes the agent between this and legal_check/legal_verify beyond inference.

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