render_run

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

With no annotations, the description should disclose behaviors like whether the operation is destructive, requires authentication, or has side effects. It only mentions the return value, omitting critical behavioral traits such as whether it modifies state or triggers asynchronous processes.

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 very concise (one sentence), but this brevity sacrifices necessary detail. It is front-loaded with the core action, but every sentence should add value; here, it only states purpose and return, leaving out essential param and usage info.

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 the tool has 3 parameters, nested objects, and an output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain what 'render' means, how the parameters affect behavior, or when to use it among 12 sibling tools. The existence of an output schema does not compensate for missing param and usage context.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, and the tool description does not explain any parameters. The 'recipe' object, 'request_id' string, and 'force' boolean are left completely undocumented, forcing the agent to infer their meaning from names 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 the verb ('Render') and the resource ('a recipe'), and specifies the return values ('manifest + render_source enum'). However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like recipe_read or recipe_mutate, though 'render' is distinct. A more explicit comparison would improve score.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as recipe_read, recipe_validate, or render_cancel. The description lacks any context about prerequisites, when-not to use, or typical scenarios, leaving the agent to guess.

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