feedback-orientation

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It mentions rendering and returning analytics, but does not clarify whether the tool modifies the scene, requires specific permissions, or has side effects. This lack of transparency could cause an agent to misuse the tool.

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 a single, concise sentence that captures the core action and result. It has no redundancy or unnecessary details, making it efficient and well-structured.

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?

The description gives the basic purpose but omits important context: when to use it, what the analytics contain, and any side effects. Given the simplicity of the tool, it might be acceptable, but the lack of usage and behavioral details makes it incomplete for an agent to safely and effectively invoke it.

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 provides titles for parameters (e.g., 'Square render resolution (px)', 'Named view to render from'), but no descriptions. The tool description mentions none of the parameters, so it fails to add meaning beyond the schema. Since the schema coverage is low (no descriptions), the description should have compensated by explaining the purpose of each parameter.

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 the tool renders a normal/backface orientation eye and returns orientation analytics. It is specific enough to distinguish it from other feedback tools like feedback-topology or feedback-uv, though the exact nature of the 'eye' and the analytics could be more explicit.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, contexts, or any conditions that would make this tool the preferred choice, leaving the agent to infer its purpose from the name alone.

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