Render plate image

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description adds value by explaining view semantics, default frame selection per view, and the visual nature of output. It does not mention potential failure cases (e.g., preview before slice) but discloses the key behavioral distinction between editor and preview. No contradiction with the read-only annotation.

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 well-structured with line breaks and purposeful sections. Each sentence adds information: the opening defines the output, then view definitions, angle list, and frame details. There is no redundant wording, and the format aids scanning.

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 five optional parameters, no output schema, and no enums, this description gives enough context for correct invocation: it explains the two main views, angle options, frame defaults, and when to override frame. The only gap is the width/height parameters, but these are generic and unlikely to cause misuse. Overall it is nearly complete for the tool's complexity.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It explains 'view' values (editor vs preview), 'angle' options, and 'frame' behavior and defaults. However, width and height parameters are left entirely undocumented; though self-explanatory, they receive no semantic explanation, so the coverage is not complete.

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 opens with a clear, specific statement: 'Render a PNG picture of the current plate so you can SEE it.' It then distinguishes between editor and preview views, which directly separates it from sibling tools that manipulate models or slicing. The purpose is unambiguous and action-oriented.

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 provides concrete when-to-use guidance for each view: editor view for checking orientation/contact before slicing, preview view for checking support after slicing. It also explains when to pass the frame parameter explicitly (side view of a small part). However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives among sibling tools or state when not to use this tool, so it falls short of full 5.

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