feedback.orientation

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

No annotations provided, so description must shoulder full burden. It only says 'render' and 'return analytics', but does not disclose whether the tool modifies the scene, creates temporary geometry, or requires any specific mode or selection. Critical behavioral traits are missing.

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 sentence covering the main action and output. It is front-loaded and not verbose. However, it could be slightly expanded without harming conciseness to add crucial details.

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 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description leaves major gaps. It does not specify what the analytics contain, whether the render is displayed or returned as data, or how to interpret the result. The description is too sparse for an agent to use the tool correctly without additional context.

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 0%, and the description adds nothing about the three parameters (res, view, object). It does not explain their purpose, valid values, or defaults. The description fails to compensate for the absent schema descriptions.

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?

Description clearly states the action ('Render') and the resource ('normal/backface orientation eye') and the output ('return orientation analytics'). It distinguishes from sibling feedback tools which cover quality, critique, topology, etc. However, 'orientation analytics' is vague and 'eye' may be jargon, slightly reducing clarity.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like feedback.topology or feedback.uv. No mention of prerequisites (e.g., need an active object) or context that would help an agent decide if this is the right tool.

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