compile_scad

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It reveals the use of a local binary, BOSL2 support, the inline 3D stage side effect, automatic mesh decimation, and the caveat that the PNG preview is not the whole experience. This goes beyond a basic 'compile' statement, though it does not mention failure modes, file cleanup, or permission implications.

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 purpose and input modes, followed by a timeout tip and structured Args list. The inline 3D stage paragraph is somewhat long and uses ALL CAPS, but it conveys important behavioral context. Each sentence contributes useful information, though the staging explanation could be tightened slightly.

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?

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the key operational aspects: inputs, compilation process, return value, timeout guidance, and the post-success 3D stage behavior. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke and interpret the result, though error handling and file lifecycle details are absent.

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 fully compensate for parameter meaning. It provides an explicit Args section explaining scad_code and scad_path are mutually exclusive options, and timeout defaults to 300 seconds with a scenario-specific increase to 600+. This adds significant semantic value beyond the raw schema fields.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource pair: 'Compile OpenSCAD code into an STL file.' It then details the two input modes (source code or .scad path), the local OpenSCAD binary, and the return value (path to generated STL), making the tool's purpose unmistakable. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like validate_openscad_code, analyze_scad_code, and tweak_and_compile_scad.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool (compiling SCAD to STL) and provides a specific time-based guideline for surface() heightmap operations ('increase timeout to 600+ seconds'). It also explains the OR relationship between scad_code and scad_path, which guides invocation. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool in favor of a sibling.

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