get_render_preview

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'low-sample' and 'fast iteration' implying a lightweight operation, but it does not state whether the tool is read-only, returns an image, modifies scene state, or any side effects. For a rendering tool, this is a significant omission for the agent to understand the operation's impact.

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 compact, front-loading the purpose in the first line, followed by a clear 'Args:' list. Every sentence serves a purpose: the purpose line and parameter explanations. There is no filler or redundancy, making it efficient and well-structured.

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's simplicity (3 optional parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the core purpose and parameters. However, it lacks any mention of what the tool returns (e.g., an image file path, a preview buffer) or whether it alters render settings. For a render-related tool, this missing return information is a notable gap that could confuse an agent.

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 provides only names and types with no descriptions (0% coverage). The description compensates fully: 'width: Preview width', 'height: Preview height', 'samples: Number of render samples (lower = faster, less quality)'. Each parameter is explained with its meaning and trade-off, exceeding what the schema offers.

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: 'Quick low-sample render preview for fast iteration.' It names the resource (render preview) and implies a specific use case (fast iteration). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like render_preview or render_image, though the 'low-sample' qualifier hints at a distinguishing characteristic.

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 clear context on when to use the tool: for fast iteration due to low samples. It does not mention alternatives or exclusions, but the phrase 'fast iteration' is a useful guideline. Since it offers clear intent but no explicit when-not-to-use or alternative comparison, it matches the 'clear context, no exclusions' level.

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