render_preview

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses offscreen rendering, no engine requirement, a pyrender dependency, and the allowed views values/default. While it doesn't mention side effects or return format, an output schema exists, so those omissions are less critical.

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 sentences: the first states the core purpose, and the second packs parameter semantics and a dependency note. No fluff, well 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 simple render tool with an output schema and a clear parameter schema, the description covers purpose, dependency, and views options. It doesn't elaborate on return behavior (handled by output schema) or pipeline timing, but overall it is adequately complete.

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%, but the description adds meaning to the 'views' parameter by listing the allowed values (iso/front/back/top/side) and default ([iso]). It does not explain 'size' or 'glb_path' beyond what the schema already provides, so compensation is partial.

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 performs 'Offscreen renders of a GLB', specifying the verb 'renders' and the resource type 'GLB'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like generate_model or server_status by the render-specific action.

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 explicit 'when to use' or 'when not to use' guidance. The phrase 'no engine needed' hints at lighter usage compared to a full engine, but it does not mention alternatives or pipeline stage. The dependency note is operational, not usage context.

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