getrendered — list instances currently being rendered

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

Even with annotations covering read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, the description adds substantial context: the getrendered dependency is type-guarded and pcall-wrapped, failures return { error }, the result shape is { count, truncated, samples }, and the full count is reported while samples are capped. It also notes prerequisites like active-client and failure guidance.

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 purpose is front-loaded and the content is generally structured, but the description is dense and somewhat repetitive — for example, return details and read-only/safety metadata are restated. Most sentences still earn their place for a complex runtime inspection tool.

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?

With no output schema, the description adequately explains return values and failure behavior, and the annotations cover safety. Prerequisites, cost, phase, and fallback guidance are all present, making it complete enough for an agent to call correctly.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, so the three optional parameters are already fully documented in the schema. The description includes a signature summary but does not add meaningful semantics beyond what the schema already 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 states a specific verb and resource: it enumerates instances currently being rendered by the engine and returns a structured sample. It also clarifies the scope ('set of objects actually on screen this frame'), but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from nearby siblings such as get-render-stats or list-gui-elements.

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 gives concrete use cases — ESP/render auditing, spotting visible parts/GUIs, and correlating render spikes with specific instances — which makes the intended context clear. It does not, however, name alternative tools or state when not to use this one.

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