Render plate image

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses a required capability, explains that 'editor' reflects pre-slice state while 'preview' reflects post-slice toolpaths, and details default frame behavior. This gives the agent meaningful behavioral expectations without any contradiction.

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 and front-loaded with the core action, followed by labeled parameter explanations and a capability note. Every sentence adds useful information; there is no redundancy or filler.

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 the tool's moderate complexity, this description covers output format, view semantics, angle options, frame defaults, and the required runtime capability. Even without an output schema, the agent has enough context to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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?

The input schema has 0% parameter descriptions, so the description carries the burden. It thoroughly defines 'view', 'angle', and 'frame' with allowed values and defaults. 'width' and 'height' are left implicit, but their meanings are self-evident from their names and default numbers, so the coverage is strong but 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 specific verb and object: 'Render a PNG picture of the current plate.' It clearly distinguishes the two main view modes ('editor' and 'preview') and their purposes, making the tool's function unambiguous and separating it from sibling slice/status tools.

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 explicit context for when to use each view: 'editor' for orientation/contact/footprint checks and 'preview' for checking support placement after slicing. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or provide 'when not to use' exclusions, but the usage context is clear and practical.

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