Render the floor plan

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

Beyond the readOnly/openWorld annotations, the description discloses important behavior: the output is a PNG, regions are fitted by growing the short side and are never cropped, `bg` overlays a reference image, small `w`/`h` save tokens, and renders are serialized with waiting. These are substantive operational details an agent would not otherwise know.

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 compact and front-loads the output type. It is somewhat telegraphic in style, using notation like `region=[[minx,miny],[maxx,maxy]]`, but almost every sentence carries actionable information.

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 the output schema and annotations, the description covers the important rendering behavior: PNG output, framing modes, aspect fitting, background overlay, token-saving advice, and concurrency waiting. It is largely complete, though it lacks explicit routing guidance relative to sibling rendering and plan-view tools.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds useful semantics beyond the schema, especially that `region` is fitted to the image aspect by growing the short side rather than cropping, and that `bg` is for comparing against a reference image.

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 clearly states the tool produces a PNG of the floor plan exactly as the user sees it, with region/room framing and optional background overlay. It is specific about output and scope, but does not explicitly distinguish itself from nearby siblings such as show_plan, render_3d, or render_photo.

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 explains how to choose between `region` and `room`, and mentions that renders are serialized and wait their turn. However, it gives no guidance on when to use this tool instead of sibling tools like show_plan, render_3d, or render_photo, so selection guidance is only implied.

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