render_poster

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

Discloses that headless Chromium is used and JavaScript is disabled during rendering, which clarifies part of the rendering behavior. However, with no annotations available, it omits permission requirements, output naming/return conventions, or failure modes.

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?

A single sentence that effectively captures the tool's operation.

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?

The tool has 4 params, an enum, no output schema, and no annotations. The description confirms rendering but fails to specify output types, side effects, or the meaning of 'size' and posterId. Sibling tools are relevant but no differentiator.

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 input schema has 4 parameters but 0% schema description coverage. The description doesn't explain posterId, the size enum (instagram-portrait, instagram-square, story, a4-portrait), or whether png/pdf booleans can be combined or must be exclusive.

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?

States a specific conversion task: render an archived HTML/CSS poster to PNG/PDF via headless Chrome. The word 'archived' distinguishes it from create/update/get tools, though it doesn't explicitly name an alternative.

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 vs siblings (create_poster, get_poster, search_posters) or exclusions for when another tool is preferable.

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