Render pages

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

With annotations already declaring non-read-only, idempotent and non-destructive, the description adds genuinely new behavior: a hard cap of 4 returned page images and the fact that save=true writes files named <name>_p<N>.png. It leaves the overwrite semantics of those writes unexplained, so not a 5.

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 front-loaded sentence with the core action first, then return behavior, then side effects. No filler and nothing buried.

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 9-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers return shape (up to 4 images) and file output naming, which are the highest-risk unknowns. It does not address the interaction between save, output_dir and output_path, nor what happens when more pages are requested than the cap allows, leaving meaningful gaps.

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 67%, and the schema already documents pages, scale, markup, overwrite, output_dir and output_path. The description contributes one thing beyond the schema — the output filename pattern for save=true — but says nothing about the pages/scale/markup semantics, so it is baseline-adequate rather than compensating.

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 and resource ("Render document pages to PNG") plus the motivating purpose ("to look at them"), which an agent can understand without opening the schema. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from convert_document or extract_text, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

"To look at them" implies a visual-inspection use case, but there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over convert_document or extract_text, and no exclusions or prerequisites. Usage is only implied.

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