render_proxy

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

No annotations are provided, so the description alone must communicate behavior. It states that the tool produces a 'fast low-resolution proxy', but it does not disclose what happens to the original, what the proxy is used for, whether it is a read-only operation or if it modifies project state, or what the output format is. For a rendering tool, this lacks necessary context about side effects and constraints.

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 a single, concise sentence that is easy to parse. It front-loads the essential action and purpose. However, its brevity comes at the expense of critical details, but for the length it has, it is well-structured and not verbose.

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 complexity (3 parameters, no schema descriptions, no annotations), the description is far from complete. It does not explain a critical detail: the meaning of the parameters, especially 'output'. It also does not clarify the relationship to sibling tools like 'render' or 'render_farm', leaving the agent without enough information to call it 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning the schema provides no descriptions for the parameters. The tool description does not explain the meaning of 'width', 'height', or 'output'. For instance, does 'output' specify a file path or a format? Are width and height required? This is a severe gap; the description must compensate for the schema's lack of detail but does not.

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 clear verb ('render') and resource ('low-resolution proxy for review'), but it does not distinguish this from the sibling 'render' tool. Both tools appear to render, and without a clear differentiation, an agent may struggle to choose the correct one. The phrase 'fast low-resolution proxy' suggests a specific use case, but it is not explicit about why this tool exists versus 'render'.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'render' or 'render_farm'. The description implies it is for quick previews ('fast low-resolution proxy for review'), but it does not state when to prefer this over 'render' or 'render_farm'. This is a critical gap given the sibling tool list includes multiple rendering options.

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