render_cutout

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does add real operational context: the image is assembled from external services (CADC mosaics, CDS hips2fits) and CGPS cutouts are native-resolution rather than resampled. It stops short of stating what is returned (image bytes, file path, or figure object), whether the call is network-dependent or slow, or how overlays are drawn when coordinates cannot be resolved.

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?

Two sentences, no filler, with the core capability front-loaded and provenance as supporting detail. Dense but every clause carries information; only mild jargon cost (PWN, SNR, CGPS assumed known).

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?

For a 12-parameter rendering tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description leaves major gaps: the return type is never stated, coordinate/frame semantics are unaddressed, and default framing behavior is only implied by the schema. It is not enough for an agent to call this confidently without reading the schema field by field.

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 only 25% across 12 parameters, so the description must compensate. It partly does by explaining what the overlay categories mean (pulsar, host-SNR Green diameter, PWN extent, neighbouring catalogued objects), but says nothing about the b/l vs ra/dec coordinate pairing, the frame parameter's interaction with them, survey selection trade-offs, stretch, or percentile scaling.

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 concrete capability: produce a survey image cutout around a nebula with pulsar/SNR/PWN/neighbour overlays, and names the data sources (CGPS DRAO mosaics via CADC, other surveys via CDS hips2fits). It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling render_multiwavelength, leaving the agent to infer the difference.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative-naming guidance. The provenance sentence hints at which surveys behave differently (CGPS native-resolution vs hips2fits), but the agent gets no rule for choosing this tool over render_multiwavelength or for picking among the 13 survey options.

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