presentation-get-rendering-by-path

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'Gets' implying a read operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it requires authentication, rate limits, error conditions, or what the return format looks like. For a tool with 6 parameters and no output schema, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.

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, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and appropriately sized for a get operation, though it could benefit from more detail given the tool's complexity.

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 has 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what a 'rendering definition' is, how the parameters affect the retrieval, or what the return value contains. For a presentation tool with multiple filters, this leaves too much ambiguity for effective use.

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 100%, so all parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying 'path' is the primary input. It doesn't explain relationships between parameters (e.g., how 'dataSource' and 'placeholder' interact) or provide usage examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'Gets rendering definition by item path' clearly states the action (gets) and resource (rendering definition), but it's vague about what a 'rendering definition' entails. It distinguishes from siblings like 'presentation-get-rendering-by-id' by specifying 'by path', but doesn't explain the difference between path-based and ID-based retrieval beyond the parameter type.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The description doesn't mention when to choose this over 'presentation-get-rendering-by-id' or other presentation tools, nor does it specify prerequisites or context for usage. The agent must infer usage from the parameter names alone.

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