render_view

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does a lot: camera framing rules (bounding volume with children, empty=everything), azimuth/elevation conventions, fov 0 = orthographic, isolate semantics, and the visual result of all eight modes. What it omits is output behavior — where the image goes, the role of `name`, and whether anything is written to disk — which for a render tool is a real gap.

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?

Front-loaded with the core idea (own camera and light, frames target's bounding volume) before conventions and modes. Dense with little filler, though the mode enumeration and the pixel-width remark on wire mode are lengthy enough that it reads more as a reference block than a tight definition.

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 10-parameter render tool with no annotations and no output schema, the camera math and mode semantics are unusually complete. The remaining hole is the output artifact (file name, destination, format) which the agent needs to use the result of the render.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does for target, azimuth, elevation, fov, isolate and every mode enum value. It leaves look_at, size, margin and name unexplained; size/margin are guessable but look_at is a meaningful camera parameter left undocumented, so it falls short of full compensation.

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 a picture of `target` from any angle using its own camera and light. It explicitly distinguishes itself from render_sheet (overview with metre grid) and render_final (scene lights/materials/camera), so an agent can pick the right render tool without opening 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?

Names both alternatives with the condition that selects each (render_sheet for grid overview, render_final for real lighting/materials). It also gives the when-to-use for isolate=false ('use it for close-ups of joints in context'), so the main branching decisions are explicit.

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