render_view

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does disclose key traits: the PNG is saved to workspace/renders/<doc>/, objects are coloured by material, and explode moves objects from the assembly centre. It does not explicitly state whether existing render files are overwritten or whether the document itself is modified.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the core action, then efficiently covers views, explode, and the saved output path. Every sentence adds useful information without repetition.

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?

For a six-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the main workflow, view semantics, object filtering, explode behavior, and output location well enough to invoke correctly. Minor gaps remain around size, title, and overwrite behavior.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains view meanings in detail, the explode range and effect, and that objects can restrict the render, but it leaves size and title entirely undocumented.

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 states a specific verb and resource: render the document or listed objects to a PNG. It also enumerates the available views and explains the explode effect, giving an agent enough to distinguish this from export, section_view, or make_drawing siblings.

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 clear usage context by listing valid views, describing grid as a combined view, and explaining when explode is useful. It does not explicitly say when to choose this over export, make_drawing, or section_view, so it stops short of full alternatives guidance.

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