Render an evidence pack

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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds context that the output is a markdown compliance report, which is useful beyond annotation hints. No contradiction with annotations.

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 extremely concise with only two sentences and an Args line, front-loading the purpose. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundancy or fluff.

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 simple single-parameter schema, comprehensive annotations, and presence of an output schema, the description provides sufficient context. It explains the input and output format, though it could optionally mention that the tool does not modify state (already covered by annotations).

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% with a clear description of 'pack_content' as 'An evidence pack as raw JSON text.' The description repeats this without adding new semantics, so it does not significantly enhance parameter understanding beyond the schema.

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 specifies the action ('Render'), the resource ('an evidence pack'), and the output format ('as a markdown compliance report'). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like build_evidence_pack (building) and seal_pack (sealing) by focusing on the rendering step.

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?

The description implies usage when you have an evidence pack and need a markdown report, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like build_evidence_pack or sign_pack. No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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