rendoc

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes what the tool returns (markup, styles, schema, sample data) and its purpose (inspection before generation). However, it doesn't mention potential limitations like whether previews are cached, if there are rate limits, or authentication requirements. For a read-only tool with no annotations, this is good but not comprehensive.

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 perfectly concise with three sentences that each serve a distinct purpose: stating what the tool returns, when to use it, and what the output components mean. There is no wasted language, and the information is front-loaded with the core functionality first.

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 single-parameter read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides excellent context about what the tool does and when to use it. However, it doesn't fully describe the return format (e.g., structure of markup/styles/schema) or potential error conditions. Given the complexity is low, this is nearly complete but has minor gaps.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the single parameter. The description adds meaningful context by explaining that the schema 'shows which data fields the template expects' and that 'sample data (if available) shows example values,' which helps the agent understand what to expect from the output. This goes beyond the basic parameter documentation in the schema.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose with specific verbs ('Get', 'inspect') and resources ('full markup, styles, and data schema of a template'). It distinguishes from siblings like list_templates (which lists IDs) and generate_document (which creates documents). The description explicitly mentions what the tool returns: markup, styles, and schema.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool: 'Use this to inspect a template before generating a document.' It also references the sibling tool list_templates as the source for template IDs, creating a clear workflow connection. This gives the agent clear context for when this tool is appropriate versus alternatives.

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