td_render

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns an image and that 'height defaults to preserving the TOP's aspect ratio', which is useful. However, it does not state whether the operation is read-only or has any side effects, and it does not mention potential errors or limitations.

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 three sentences with no fluff. The main purpose is front-loaded, followed by a rationale and a key parameter detail. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

For a simple 3-parameter tool, the description covers the core purpose, return type, and an important parameter behavior. However, it omits the meaning/format of the required `path`, does not explain `width`, and does not clarify whether rendering is safe/read-only. This leaves meaningful gaps for an agent to call it 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 0%, so the description must compensate. It only adds meaning for the `height` parameter (aspect ratio preservation), leaving `path` and `width` essentially unexplained. The required `path` parameter is ambiguous, and `width` depends on schema defaults alone.

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 a specific verb ('Render'), a specific resource ('a TOP'), and the outcome ('return the image, so you can see what you built'). This distinguishes it from all sibling tools, none of which mention rendering or returning 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 gives clear context: 'check your work with this rather than inferring it from parameter values', telling the agent when to use this tool instead of analyzing parameters. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the guidance is actionable and contextually sufficient.

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