look

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose meaningful behavior: output is a single contact-sheet image, orthographic views encode their frame width in metres (a scale cue), and frames=[...] switches to a time-series strip. It does not say whether the operation is purely read-only or mention side effects, but for a view/render tool this is near-complete.

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?

Three compact sentences, front-loaded with what the tool does, then the recommended cadence, then the frames variant. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description explains the returned artifact (a contact-sheet image) and the animation variant, and all parameters are schema-documented. For a seven-parameter rendering tool this is sufficient, leaving only minor gaps around side effects and sibling selection.

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%, so the schema already documents all seven parameters, establishing a baseline of 3. The description adds some value by explaining the frames parameter's time-strip behavior and the metre framing of orthographic views, but does not elaborate on size, target, isolate, or shading beyond the schema.

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 name 'look' is vague on its own, but the description states a concrete verb+resource: it renders several angles into one contact-sheet image, and notes the animation-strip mode. It is clear what the tool produces, though it never names the siblings it differs from (viewport_screenshot, render_image, review_model), so an agent must infer the distinction.

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 gives explicit call cadence ('call it after every few modeling steps') and the reason ('catch wrong proportions, gaps and intersections'), which is strong when-to-use guidance. However, it offers no when-not guidance or alternative tools for the same visual-feedback need.

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