render_export_viewer

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

Annotations already declare non-readonly, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so safety is covered. Beyond the file extension, the description says nothing about what the export writes, how long it takes, how textures/animations are handled, or what the defaults mean.

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 wasted words, but the brevity reflects under-specification rather than efficient communication for an eight-parameter tool.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained. However, with eight undocumented parameters and no behavioral context, the description is far too thin for an export tool that manipulates scene data and writes a file.

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?

Eight parameters with 0% schema description coverage means the description carries the full burden, yet it explains none of them. Width/height defaulting to -1, the unconstrained texture_quality string, export_animations, and the optional metadata fields are all left for the agent to guess.

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 ('Export') and resource ('Marmoset Viewer (.mview) archive of the scene'), which is clear enough to separate it from render_image or render_videos. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with the sibling render/export tools, so it doesn't reach 5.

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?

No indication of when to choose this over render_image, render_images, render_videos, or scene_export, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given. The agent must infer from the tool name alone.

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