render

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It meaningfully discloses that rendering is expensive and that it is not for text extraction. However, it does not say what the returned image looks like, whether it has side effects, or what happens if the PDF is not compiled, leaving some gaps in behavioral context.

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?

Two sentences carry a clear purpose, an explicit limitation, a cost warning, and a pointer to an alternative tool. The most important information is front-loaded, and there is no wasted text.

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?

For a tool with three parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete: it defines the input (compiled PDF → page image), the purpose (layout only), the cost profile (expensive), and the alternatives. The main missing piece is the purpose and behavior of 'project', but the description covers the essential usage decisions.

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%, and the description does not directly explain the parameters. It weakly implies 'page' via 'one page' and 'path' via 'compiled PDF', but it says nothing about the 'project' parameter, path resolution, or defaults. The description therefore adds minimal meaning beyond the schema's raw field names.

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 opens with a specific purpose: render one page of a compiled PDF as an image. It explicitly scopes the tool to layout checks (float placement, overlap, figure sizing), and it calls out read() for text, so the tool is clearly distinct from siblings.

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 includes explicit usage direction: try compile() warnings first, then use render() for layout issues; use read() for text. This tells the agent both when to invoke this tool and when to prefer a sibling, which is exactly what this dimension asks for.

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