free_render_check

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It clearly states the tool does not modify anything and specifies the limits checked. However, it does not describe the output format (e.g., how the flagging is returned), leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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 extremely concise: two short sentences, no redundancy, and front-loaded with the key term 'Advisory'. Every sentence adds essential 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 tool's simplicity and lack of output schema, the description covers the main aspects: purpose, limits checked, and non-destructive nature. It is adequate for a straightforward advisory tool, though a note on return format would improve completeness.

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 description must add meaning. It does so by mapping the limits (8-bit, ≤3840x2160, ≤60fps) to the parameters width, height, fps, and bit_depth, adding value beyond the raw schema. However, it does not detail all parameter constraints or default behaviors.

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 explicitly states it is an advisory tool that flags render settings exceeding DaVinci Resolve Free limits and notes it does not change anything. The verb 'flag' and resource 'render settings' are specific, and it clearly distinguishes from sibling tools that perform actions like adding, deleting, or setting.

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 implies usage before rendering to validate settings against free limits. It does not explicitly state when not to use or contrast with alternatives, but the advisory nature and sibling context make the purpose clear. Lacks explicit exclusions or alternative references.

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