framerudiments_renderers

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

The description adds context the annotations cannot: despite a 'list' verb, the call returns a retained background job, so the agent must poll danceflow_job_status. It also states that no base effect flags apply and that conditional inference/download effects must be confirmed via danceflow_component, which explains why readOnlyHint is false and why the permissions object exists. This is consistent with the annotations (readOnly=false, idempotent=false).

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, followed by the two operational caveats. Nothing is redundant. The phrasing 'Base effect flags: none' is terse to the point of being cryptic without the surrounding schema.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the async job lifecycle plus the effects caveat are both covered. The remaining gap is sibling disambiguation against framerudiments_sprites and framerudiments_visualisers, which an agent needs in order to pick the right tool in this large family.

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 50%, and the only substantive parameter is the permissions object, which already carries its own schema description. The line 'Base effect flags: none' usefully tells the agent not to request write/network/download flags at base, but the empty `arguments` object and the mechanism for acknowledging conditional effects are left implicit.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'List installed renderer, sprite or pinned visualiser capabilities.' An agent knows it is an enumeration tool. However, folding 'sprite' and 'visualiser' into the scope muddies the boundary with the sibling tools framerudiments_sprites and framerudiments_visualisers, which likely own those resources.

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?

It gives a clear follow-up instruction ('poll danceflow_job_status') and routes conditional effect questions to danceflow_component, which is genuine usage guidance. It never says when to pick this tool over framerudiments_sprites or framerudiments_visualisers, which is the main ambiguity for an agent at selection time.

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