preview

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false with destructiveHint=false, and the description usefully explains that discrepancy: the tool writes preview.png into the project folder as a side effect while modifying nothing in the model. It also documents what the image contains (rulers in model-frame meters, magenta axle/anchor markers), which is real context beyond the annotation flags. It doesn't cover output resolution/format or whether renders are cached.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by interpretation notes and the side-effect disclosure. Every sentence carries information an agent needs to read the resulting image, though the orientation paragraph is dense and could be tightened.

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?

With no output schema, the description must convey what comes back, and it does: annotated orthographic/3-4 panels, ruler units, marker meanings, plus the saved preview.png. Enough to act on confidently; only minor details (image size, confirmable file path behavior) are absent.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine meaning for the 'views' enum values by defining orientation conventions ('front view (camera at -Z) shows the model's right side (+X) on the image LEFT'). It adds less for 'part' and 'project', which the schema already documents adequately.

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 ('Render the model as an image with several annotated views') and immediately frames scope ('Look at it after edits'). This clearly separates it from siblings like inspect, slice_layers, and export_model, which serve different purposes.

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?

'Look at it after edits' gives a clear usage context and implicitly answers when this tool is the right call. It stops short of naming alternatives or exclusions (e.g., when to prefer inspect or export_model instead), so it is a clear context rather than full routing guidance.

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