scad_compile

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

Beyond the annotations (idempotent, non-destructive), the description adds useful context about output_path resolution relative to the MCP server cwd and the tempdir fallback. This helps the agent understand file handling behavior without contradicting any annotations.

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 extremely concise: two short sentences front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a precise note on output_path. No filler or redundant repetition of schema details.

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 presence of an output schema, annotations, and sibling tools, the description covers the essential workflow sequence and the most non-obvious parameter behavior. It does not explain error scenarios or prerequisites like OpenSCAD installation, but the overall context is adequate for a scoped compile 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It thoroughly explains output_path, but code and timeout are left unexplicated. Code is somewhat self-evident from context, and timeout is standard, yet the partial compensation only earns a mid-range score.

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 compiles OpenSCAD code to STL via CGAL, which is a specific verb+resource+engine. It distinguishes itself from siblings like scad_validate_printability and scad_render_views by focusing on the compilation step.

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 instructs to always follow with scad_validate_printability, giving clear workflow context. It does not explicitly mention when-not-to-use or alternatives, but the 'always follow' guidance is strong and actionable.

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