Renders the active design as a photoreal image using Fusion's local renderer, with adjustable width, height, and quality.
Photoreal render of the active design with Fusion's local renderer (quality 25-100; higher is slower).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| width | No | ||
| height | No | ||
| quality | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false but destructiveHint=false, which is unusual for a non-mutating render; the description's 'render of the active design' supports the non-destructive read and adds that rendering is local and that quality drives duration. It does not say where the output goes (returned image vs. file on disk) or how long a high-quality render takes.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the quality range and its performance implication are packed into a parenthetical.
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?
With no output schema and no parameter documentation, the description should explain what a render call returns and what width/height control, but it is silent on both, leaving an agent unable to predict the result of the call.
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 carry parameter meaning, yet it only explains quality (range 25-100, higher is slower). Width and height are completely undocumented in both schema and description.
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?
States a specific verb and resource: produces a photoreal render of the active design using a local renderer. It implicitly separates itself from file-oriented siblings like fusion_export, but never names an alternative to confirm the boundary.
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?
Use is implied (you want an image of the current design), and the quality/speed tradeoff hints at choosing settings, but there is no explicit when-to-use versus fusion_export, fusion_look, or fusion_inspect.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.