render_preview

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden, and it delivers: it discloses the output artifact (SVG file), the visual styling rules (gray worldspawn, orange brush entities, blue labeled dots), and the supported projections. It does not explicitly state that the map file is never modified or describe failure modes, but the rendering-focused behavior is clearly disclosed.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler. The first sentence states the action, resource, output format, and rendering details; the second covers the view variants with axis mappings. Every clause earns its place and the most important information is 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 moderately simple render tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is nearly complete: it covers what is rendered, how items are styled, the three view options, and (via the schema's out_path description) where the SVG lands. The only real gap is the return value/confirmation format and behavior on invalid map paths, but nothing essential to calling it correctly is missing.

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 100%, so the schema already documents map_path, view, and out_path, establishing a baseline of 3. The description adds value by mapping the view enum values to coordinate axes (top X/Y, front X/Z, side Y/Z), which the schema does not provide, giving agents semantic meaning beyond the enum names.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Render a 2D orthographic preview of the map as an SVG file') and details the exact visual encoding: brush footprints colored by type and point entities as labeled dots. This gives an agent a precise picture of what the tool produces, and the concrete output format (SVG) plus view list distinguishes it from the other map-related siblings.

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 vs alternatives guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of how this differs from the closely related map_overview sibling. The view axis list (top X/Y, front X/Z, side Y/Z) explains how to invoke it, but nothing tells an agent when it is the right tool compared to its siblings.

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