render

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

With no annotations, the description bears the full burden. It only states that the tool returns rendered text, but does not disclose whether it is read-only, idempotent, or has side effects. No mention of errors or permissions needed.

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 very concise: two sentences, no fluff. Every sentence adds necessary information (purpose and format details). Front-loaded with the action.

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 simplicity and the existence of an output schema (which likely describes the return format), the description covers the essential aspects. It could mention that the report must exist, but for a rendering tool, this is acceptable.

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 description adds value for the 'format' parameter by listing the allowed values (markdown, issue, test-plan), which is not in the schema's type alone. However, the required 'report_id' is not explained. Schema coverage is 0%, so the partial explanation is helpful but incomplete.

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 that the tool renders a report as a shareable artifact, and lists specific formats (markdown, issue, test-plan). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_report (raw data) and render_html_video (video output), though it could be more explicit about differentiation.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_report or get_suggested_actions. The description does not mention prerequisites or context for invocation.

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