render_postscript

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

No annotations, so description carries full burden. Discloses output file path, optional base64 return, and diagnostics pattern. Doesn't mention file overwrite behavior, permissions, or cleanup. Adequate but not exhaustive for a file-writing tool.

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?

Efficient and front-loaded: purpose stated first, then parameter details in a compact semicolon-separated list. No redundant or filler sentences.

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?

Covers purpose, all parameters, output behavior (path, base64), error handling via ok/diagnostics, and usage constraints (source/path). For a tool with no output schema and 0% param coverage, this is thorough and actionable.

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 coverage is 0%, but the description explains all 7 parameters: output_format allowed values, resolution purpose (DPI for raster), page 1-based, eps_crop trimming, return_base64 behavior, and source/path exclusivity. Comprehensive compensation for missing schema descriptions.

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?

Clear verb+resource: 'Render a PostScript/EPS program' to specified output formats. Distinguishes itself from siblings like validate_postscript (validation) and postscript_capabilities (capabilities) by focusing on output generation.

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?

Provides explicit usage instructions: 'Provide EITHER source or path', recommends eps_crop for EPS figures, and suggests return_base64 for quick preview. References validate_postscript for diagnostics, implying when to use this vs. validation. Lacks explicit exclusions but context is clear.

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