Preview a TEPRA label

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral transparency burden. It clearly discloses that the tool does not print and therefore does not consume tape, and that it returns an image. It could go further by detailing the exact return format, but it covers the most important side-effect distinction.

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 exactly two sentences, front-loading the core action, output, and primary use case. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.

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 has 12 parameters but a rich schema, the description covers the essential behavior, the non-printing side effect, and the intended use case. The lack of an output schema means a more explicit return-format note would help, but the description is still largely complete for a preview tool.

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 schema describes all 12 parameters with 100% coverage, so the description need not repeat parameter details. It correctly stays at the baseline of 3, adding no extra parameter-specific guidance beyond what the schema already provides.

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 uses the specific verb 'Render' and identifies the resource 'a label', clearly stating the output is an image and the action is 'without printing'. This strongly distinguishes it from sibling tools like tepra_print.

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 explicitly advises using the tool to 'check the layout before spending tape', providing clear context for when to call it. It does not name alternative tools, but the contrast with printing is implied, which is adequate for this tool.

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