tool_render

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

Annotations are absent, so the description must carry the full burden. It discloses that credentials are redacted, which is a meaningful behavioral trait. However, it does not mention whether the operation is read-only, modifies any state, or requires authentication. With only a tool_id parameter, the agent cannot infer safety or side effects beyond the description's limited scope.

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?

Two sentences, zero wasted words. The first sentence states the core purpose and output format; the second specifies content scope and a security behavior (redaction). It is front-loaded and 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?

The tool has only one required parameter, no output schema, and no nested objects, so complexity is low. The description provides the core information (renders as markdown, shows endpoints/schemas/config, redacts credentials). It is sufficient for the agent to use the tool correctly. A small gap is lack of mention about return format structure, but given the straightforward nature, a 4 is reasonable.

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 100%, meaning the schema already documents the tool_id parameter thoroughly. The description adds marginal value, implying that the parameter identifies which tool to render, but it does not elaborate on format constraints or expected values. Baseline 3 is appropriate because schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states a clear verb ("Render") and resource ("tool as a human-readable markdown document") and distinguishes it from siblings. For example, tool_list lists tools, tool_create creates them, and tool_call calls them, but tool_render specifically produces a markdown view. The mention of "endpoints, schemas, and configuration" makes the output's content explicit.

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 implies usage for obtaining a readable summary of a tool's definition, which is a relevant context. However, it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like tool_list or skill_render (which renders a skill) or when not to use it. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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