review_show_model

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral detail beyond that: repeated calls replace the model and reload an open tab, part names/plate positions/filament colours survive 3MF import, and multiple files render side by side.

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?

Front-loaded with the one-line what-it-is, then when-to-use, formats, repeat-call semantics, and next step in a tight sequence. Slightly dense with the multi-format list and the inline curl example, but every line carries information an agent would otherwise have to guess.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be spelled out, and the description still implies a viewer URL by showing the curl wait pattern. Combined with the follow-up tool pointer, an agent has enough to call and chain correctly; only the exact viewer-URL/tab lifecycle is left implicit.

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 100% and both parameters (paths, title) are already documented, so the schema carries the load. The description adds format-level meaning ('Supports STL, 3MF ... OBJ, PLY and GLB') and a side-by-side layout note, but nothing about path constraints or title behaviour beyond the schema defaults.

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?

States a specific verb+resource (open 3D model files in a browser viewer) plus the distinctive affordance of pinning notes to exact spots. The second sentence and format list make it unmistakable next to review_get_feedback, which only reads notes.

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?

Explicitly names the two triggering conditions ('when you want the user's feedback on a 3D design, or when they ask to see a model') and then routes to the correct follow-up tool plus a fallback (curl on the viewer URL) for clients that can't block. That is when-to-use, what-next, and an alternative all in one.

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