render_depth_map

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

The description explicitly discloses that rendering occurs in a throw-away scene copy, meaning the current scene's compositor and render settings remain untouched, which is a key side-effect. It does not mention output format or return value, but this is a minor gap given the clear non-destructive behavior.

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 concise, consisting of two short sentences with no redundant information. Every clause contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and side-effect.

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?

While the parameter is well-explained, the description does not state what the function returns (e.g., image path, format), which is relevant for a render operation. Since no output schema is present, this missing detail leaves a small gap, but the core behavior is sufficiently specified.

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?

The parameter max_depth is described as the depth value mapped to black, which gives meaningful semantic context beyond the schema's type and default. This fully clarifies the parameter's role.

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 specific action (rendering a normalised depth map) and the resource (active camera via Blender compositor Z-pass), distinguishing it from sibling render tools like render_from_camera and render_all_cameras.

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 the purpose and normalization behavior (closer objects lighter) and notes that it uses a throw-away scene copy, which implies it is safe to call without affecting the current scene. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternative render tools or mention when to prefer this over them.

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