scad_import_stl

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

The description discloses that the tool returns a snippet rather than performing a direct import, and that the snippet includes a NOTE about the --render-mode path caveat. This adds behavioral context beyond the annotations, which already declare the operation as read-only and idempotent.

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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and including only essential extra context. Every sentence earns its place.

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 simple code-generation tool with an output schema, the description covers the core purpose, use context, and a notable caveat. The main gap is parameter detail, but the tool's simplicity and present output schema make this mostly sufficient.

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?

With zero schema description coverage, the description should compensate by explaining parameters, but it does not mention stl_path or convexity. The parameter names are suggestive but left undefined, especially convexity where a default value is provided but no meaning given.

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 'Return an OpenSCAD snippet that imports the given STL,' using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling Blender tools by explicitly mentioning OpenSCAD, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 phrase 'for Blender→SCAD handoff or further parametric modification' provides a clear use context. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion scenarios, so it stops short of full guidance.

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