Graphite render

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden and succeeds: it warns that the pinned CLI exits SIGSEGV after writing, that quarantinedAfterWrite: true is normal, that artifacts land in <projectRoot>/exports/, and that outputName gets an extension appended automatically. This is exactly the kind of non-obvious behavior an agent needs.

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 long but every clause carries operational weight, and it is front-loaded with the core purpose and the either/or input decision. The SIGSEGV warning is unusual but necessary, not filler.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the full invocation path: inputs, output format constraints, artifact location, and success metadata (sha256, validation, quarantine). It is sufficient for an agent to call the tool correctly, with only minor gaps around error behavior and gif sub-options.

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 prose must compensate. It does: templateId vs document, params defaulting behavior, known templates, output format enum, raster requiring both width/height, and outputName semantics are all explained. The only substantive gap is the gif animation object (mode/fps/frames/duration), which is left to the raw schema.

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 opening sentence identifies a specific operation: 'Render a Graphite document to a validated artifact,' which clearly separates it from list/validate operations. It does not explicitly mention graphite_render_variants, so sibling differentiation is mostly implicit rather than stated.

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 gives explicit input routing: pass either templateId/params or an inline document, lists known template IDs, and states output size rules. This is clear when-to-use context, but it never tells the agent when to prefer graphite_render_variants or graphite_validate_doc, so exclusions are absent.

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