render_preview

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that preview is fast and excludes sky/smoke/water, and that final is high quality, which gives some idea of render output. However, it does not mention what the tool returns (image, file path, sequence), whether it modifies the scene, or how frames/frame_count are used. The Korean sentence is a redundant translation and adds no behavioral detail.

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 short (one English sentence plus a redundant Korean translation) and front-loaded with the main action. It is concise but the Korean line adds no value and the description lacks critical detail, so it is not as effective as it could be. The structure is adequate but the content is incomplete.

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 tool with 5 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain what the output is, how frame_count or frames work, what the returned data looks like, or any side effects. An agent would not know how to set parameters beyond quality or what to expect. This is far below the minimum viable context for correct invocation.

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% – the schema provides only names and defaults, no descriptions. The description explains only the 'quality' parameter in detail. Width, height, frames, and frame_count are not mentioned at all. With five parameters and zero schema descriptions, the description must compensate but 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?

The description states a clear verb and resource: 'Re-render the current scene.' It also enumerates quality levels, which gives some specificity. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like render_video or snapshot, though the mention of 'current scene' and quality presets suggests a still/frame render. Slight ambiguity but mostly clear.

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?

The description explains what each quality option does (preview vs smoke vs final) but provides no guidance on when to use this tool over render_video, snapshot, or set_render. There are no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative references. The usage context is implied but not stated.

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