Render Carve

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to restate safety. The phrase 'with loss reporting' adds a behavioral detail, but it is vague and does not clarify what the loss report contains, how it is returned, or whether it accompanies the rendered output.

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 communicates the core purpose, output variants, and an additional behavioral note. Every word earns its place; there is no repetition of schema properties or annotation 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?

The tool is simple with only two parameters, and annotations cover safety, but there is no output schema. The description does not explain the expected return value or the semantics of the loss report, leaving an agent uncertain about what the invocation will actually produce beyond the chosen format.

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 50%, so the description carries some of the burden. It repeats the target enum values and clarifies that the source is a Carve document, but it does not add meaningful detail beyond the schema for 'source' or explain constraints/pitfalls of each target format. The description is adequate but not compensatory.

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 states a specific action ('Render Carve') and enumerates the exact output formats: HTML, Markdown, plain text, and ANSI terminal text. This clearly distinguishes the tool from its siblings (carve_lint, carve_format, carve_parse, carve_migrate) by focusing on conversion/rendering rather than analysis or mutation.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like carve_parse or carve_format. The usage is only implied by the tool's name and the listed output formats; there is no mention of when rendering is appropriate or inappropriate, nor any exclusions.

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