render_sheet

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine behavioural context beyond that: orthographic projection, shared scale across views, the metre grid and axis colour convention, and that the answer carries a name-to-hex legend when color_by='object'. It stops short of describing resolution behaviour for `size` or the exact response shape, so not a 5.

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 clause and the routing sentence is placed last, which is the right order. The middle is dense and telegraphic ('color_by `object` gives every object its own colour and the answer has a `legend`...'), but nearly every clause carries information.

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, so the description must hint at returns, and it does mention the legend of name to '#rrggbb'. Combined with the safety annotations and clear sibling routing, an agent has enough to call it correctly; only the `size` parameter and exact view set remain unexplained.

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 carry parameter meaning. It explains `names` (limits objects, includes children) and `color_by` (object gives per-object colour plus a legend of '#rrggbb', noting the lit picture shifts slightly), which is valuable. However `size` and the `views` selection are not addressed beyond the implicit 'several fixed views', leaving half the parameters 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?

Names a specific action (render an overview sheet) with concrete output characteristics: fixed orthographic views on a metre grid, shared scale, world-axis colour coding. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from render_view and render_final, so an agent can pick it without opening sibling schemas.

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?

Gives explicit routing: use render_view for one free angle, a close-up or check mode; use render_final for the lit picture through the scene camera. This is a clear when-to-use-this-vs-alternatives statement, and it also notes that no scene camera or lights are needed here.

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