pro_preview_stl

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

Beyond the annotations, it discloses local/offline operation, generated HTML or SVG artifacts, and the HTML viewer's interactive behavior. It does not explain where output is written, whether existing files can be overwritten, or explicitly state that the source STL remains unchanged.

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 compact sentences front-load the input, output choices, and viewer features without filler. Although the second sentence is slightly awkwardly worded, its rendering contrast adds useful selection guidance.

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 core operation is adequately described for a simple three-parameter tool, while the schema supplies the format values and default. With no output schema, the missing output-location or result behavior and unexplained title parameter leave avoidable invocation 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 partially compensates by implying that path identifies a local STL and connecting format to an HTML viewer versus SVG. The optional title parameter is never explained, and no path conventions or format-specific limitations are supplied.

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 description gives a concrete action, input, and outputs: making an offline HTML viewer or SVG from a local STL, with orbit, zoom, and wireframe capabilities. Its mesh-preview versus photorealistic-rendering contrast also distinguishes it from the Visualize sibling family.

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 provides a useful when/when-not distinction: use it for lightweight STL mesh previews, not photorealistic Visualize rendering. However, it does not name the exact rendering alternative or differentiate this tool from closer siblings such as pro_preview_model and pro_inspect_stl.

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