generate_set

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the output naming convention and return structure ('per-item results plus any warnings'), which is useful. However, it does not explicitly state that files are written to disk, nor does it describe failure/partial-failure behavior, leaving gaps for a write operation.

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, front-loaded with the core action. Each sentence earns its place: the first states purpose, the second provides naming and return behavior. No wasted words.

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 complex (9 params, nested objects, no output schema), and the description gives the essential purpose but not enough to fully understand the return format or edge cases. It mentions per-item results and warnings, but not specifics. Schema covers parameters well, so the description need not repeat that; however, the lack of output schema makes the return description feel thin.

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 89%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds the naming convention (Item N becomes {lang}_{NN}.png), but this is already captured in the outputDir schema description. It does not add further meaning to parameters beyond what the schema provides.

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 verb and resource: 'Batch-renders an ordered screenshot set for one preset and language.' It distinguishes from siblings by emphasizing 'set' and 'batch,' which contrasts with single-render tools like compose_screenshot.

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 provides clear context: it is used for batch rendering of multiple screenshots at once, scoped to one preset and language. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, so it misses the highest bar.

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