Get Rendered PDF

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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent hints it discloses concrete behavior: it writes the PDF and per-page PNGs under $MAESTRO_CS_PDF_DIR (or a temp dir), guarantees no inlined base64, and defines how em_dash_found/em_dash_pages are computed and how page_count/page_images degrade when the PDF can't be read. This is unusually rich disclosure of side effects and edge cases.

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?

Front-loads the core action, then returns, then prerequisites, then environment details, so an agent can stop reading early. It is a dense block rather than bulleted and the return-shape detail is long, but nearly every sentence adds distinct, useful information.

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?

With no output schema, the description fully enumerates the return object ({filename, path, size_bytes, mime_type, page_count, page_images, em_dash_found, em_dash_pages, artifact_dir?}), the prerequisite, the file destination, and the edge case where the PDF is unreadable. Nothing an agent needs to call and interpret this tool is missing.

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%, so the description carries the full burden and does so well: it explains that target_type accepts 'base_resume' (slug), 'application' (id), and 'template' (id), and describes what each target returns. target_id semantics (slug vs id) are implied by the per-type parentheticals.

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 pairs a specific verb with a specific resource ('Save a rendered PDF locally and render one PNG per page') and clarifies the exact scope (the last rendered resume PDF, a template preview PDF). It is immediately distinguishable from the sibling get_rendered_pdf_page_image, which only returns one page's visual bytes.

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?

It states the prerequisite plainly ('Requires an existing render (render_pdf, or validate_template for a template preview)') and routes the agent to the alternative tool when image bytes are needed. It doesn't spell out an explicit 'do not use when' clause, so it falls just short of the fully explicit 5.

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