section

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses important behavior: inline=False returns only a file or HTTP download link, remote files are temporary working copies, and fresh=True rebuilds cached pieces. It also clearly warns not to use ssh, scp, or a shell on the server, though it does not describe permissions or error handling.

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 dense but front-loaded with the core purpose and key parameter behavior. The remote-server caveat and download_part guidance are relevant, though the text is somewhat run-on and could be more scannable.

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 complex tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description covers most operational behavior including remote file handling, caching, and inline output. It is not fully complete because name and variant are unexplained, but the overall coverage is strong enough for correct invocation in most cases.

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, and it does explain plane, at, parts, size, inline, and fresh. However, it leaves the required name parameter and the optional variant parameter undocumented, which is a meaningful gap for an 8-parameter tool.

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 that the tool produces a cross-section PNG image with each part in its own color, which is a specific resource and output. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools such as render_preview, but the cross-section focus makes its purpose unmistakable.

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?

It provides useful context for when parts default to the assembly versus all printable parts, and explains caching and fresh builds. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives like render_preview or before_after, so usage guidance is implied rather than fully spelled out.

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