render

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses the critical behavior: NOT YET IMPLEMENTED, the missing wf-engine-helper binary, the ok=False return, and the intended fallback. This goes well beyond the schema and gives the agent accurate expectations.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: the action, the implementation status, and the practical fallback behavior. The most critical caveat ('NOT YET IMPLEMENTED') is front-loaded immediately after the main verb.

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 non-functional stub whose only expected behavior is returning ok=False, the description covers the essential agent decision: attempt a status check, then fall back. It omits return-value structure beyond ok=False and leaves parameter semantics unexplained, but those details are largely moot while the binary is missing.

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 needed to compensate by explaining out_path, bit_depth, and sample_rate. It does not mention any of them. The parameter names and the enum/default values offer some inference, but no detail is provided about what out_path should be (e.g., file vs directory) or how sample_rate/bit_depth affect output.

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 ('Render the current Edit to a WAV file') with a specific verb and resource. It doesn't explicitly name sibling tools like render_and_audit or render_stems, but 'current Edit' helps differentiate the target. The not-implemented warning further clarifies that this is currently a status-check stub.

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 explicitly says to use this tool to check status and describes the expected ok=False result plus the fallback of telling the user to render inside Waveform. It doesn't enumerate alternative render tools or state explicit when-not-to-use conditions, but the guidance is actionable and clear.

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