flatshot_view

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

No annotations are provided, so the description conveys the key behavioral traits: it processes all 3D solids, projects from a specified direction, places the lower-left corner at (x,y), and returns a block handle and size. It does not mention side effects like creating a block definition or layer impacts, but covers the core outcome.

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?

Two sentences, with the first being information-dense and front-loaded. The second sentence is a rhetorical hook ('Model in 3D, get the 2D view for free') that reinforces value but is somewhat redundant; still, it does not waste much space.

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 tool has moderate complexity and no annotations or output schema details beyond 'returns block handle+size'. The description covers all parameters, behavior, and return value, making it effective for an agent. It could mention whether it creates a new block definition or affects the undo stack, but these are minor gaps.

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 adds essential meaning: x and y define the lower-left corner placement, and direction is the projection direction. This compensates for the schema's lack of parameter descriptions, though it does not list each parameter explicitly.

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 ('Auto-generate a 2D drawing view'), the target ('ALL 3D solids'), the projection directions, and the placement. This uniquely distinguishes it from all sibling 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?

The description implies usage after modeling 3D solids ('Model in 3D, get the 2D view for free'), and makes clear it operates on all solids. It does not explicitly state when not to use or name alternatives, but no direct alternative exists among siblings.

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