pro_preview_model

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, so the agent knows this writes something and that repeated calls are not equivalent, but the description adds no context about where the STL/viewer file is written, whether it overwrites, how long it takes, or what happens if no model is open. For a file-producing tool the output destination is essential behavioral information and is entirely absent.

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?

One tight sentence with the primary action front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient but slightly over-compressed given the missing detail.

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?

No output schema, an unexplained parameter, an unannotated write target, and competition from near-duplicate siblings — the description does not supply enough to call the tool correctly or confirm success. It needs at least the file destination and the meaning of 'title'.

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?

The single optional 'title' parameter has 0% schema description coverage and is never mentioned in the description, so the agent cannot tell whether 'title' names the viewer, the exported file, or a document. With one undocumented parameter the description needed to compensate and does not.

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?

Names a concrete verb and resource ('Export current CAD model to STL') plus a second outcome ('create a standalone offline 3D viewer'), so the agent knows exactly what it produces. However, it does not distinguish itself from closely related siblings such as export, pro_visualize_export, pro_preview_stl, or pro_capture_view, leaving ambiguity about which to pick.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives despite a crowded sibling set containing at least three other export/preview tools. The word 'current' hints that a model must be active, but that is never stated as a condition.

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