preview

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses rendering quirks ('Colours are guessed from block names; glass is see-through') and view orientations, but it does not explicitly state that the operation is non-mutating, nor does it clarify the return format (image data, URL, etc.).

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 and every clause conveys useful information, especially the view definitions and rendering caveats. The first sentence is dense and slightly run-on, but it is reasonably front-loaded.

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 3-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description gives enough to understand view/y behavior but leaves the required 'design' input and the exact return format unclear. An agent can infer a visual preview but lacks confirmation of how the design is specified and what is returned.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It effectively defines the undocumented 'view' enum values with orientation details and explains that 'y' applies to 'layer' mode and is counted from the bottom. It omits any explanation of the required 'design' parameter, which keeps it from a 5.

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 states that it produces 'A picture of the design' and enumerates view modes, so the resource and output are clear. It does not explicitly name the action (e.g., 'render' or 'generate'), and it does not distinguish itself from siblings like export or open_schematic.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as export or open_schematic. The description only explains view options, leaving tool selection entirely to inference.

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