Render the floor plan

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: the region is fitted to aspect by growing the short side and never cropped, and it advises keeping w/h small to save tokens. It does not discuss resolution-dependent rendering cost or failure modes, but the added framing behavior is genuinely informative.

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?

Front-loaded with the output type and resource in the first clause, then walks through each optional parameter efficiently. It is dense with em-dashes and slightly run-on, but every sentence carries actionable information and nothing is wasted.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and annotations cover the safety profile. The description covers the framing, padding, background overlay, and size trade-off for all seven parameters. The only real gap is the absence of sibling-level differentiation, which the definition otherwise handles well.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description goes further by explaining how region fitting behaves (grown on the short side, never cropped) and why bg is useful (overlay the scanned reference to compare), giving intent behind parameters that the schema states only mechanically.

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 resource and output clearly: a PNG of the floor plan exactly as the user sees it. This distinguishes it from render_3d and render_photo by implying a flat 2D plan view, but it never names or contrasts with those siblings or show_plan, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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 useful intra-tool routing (region vs room with pad, bg to compare against the reference) but offers no when-to-use guidance at the tool level against siblings like show_plan, render_3d, or render_photo. Usage is implied through parameter alternatives rather than explicit conditions.

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