rhino_viewport_preview

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

The description explains that non-target objects are ghosted or hidden temporarily and restored afterward, which adds behavioral insight beyond the annotations. It does not explicitly mention that a PNG file is created at the specified path, though the schema covers the 'path' parameter. Annotations have readOnlyHint=false, consistent with a capture/write operation.

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 a single short paragraph that front-loads the main purpose and then adds details. Every sentence is informative, with no wasted words. It is well-structured and easy to parse.

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 complexity of the tool (multiple parameters, filtering logic), the description covers the core behavior (ghosting, restoration, use case). It does not explain the return value, but an output schema exists. It could mention that the tool creates a file at the specified path, but that is in the schema. Overall, fairly complete for the context.

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 mentions 'selection_ids' and 'layers' and explains the effect of 'ghost_others', but does not describe parameters like 'width', 'height', 'doc_id', or 'zoom_to_selection' in detail. The schema descriptions for those are minimal, so the description adds some value but not full clarity.

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 verb ('Capture') and resource ('viewport preview') and specifies that it is restricted to a selection or layer set. It also includes the context 'Bridge only' which limits scope. The title from annotations ('Viewport Preview (filtered)') reinforces this. It distinguishes from siblings like rhino_viewport_image by emphasizing filtering.

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 calls out the use case ('multi-step LLM verification flows where only the recently added objects need to be visualised') and mentions 'Bridge only', which implies a specific context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare to alternatives like rhino_viewport_image.

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