preview_plate

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

It provides specific behavioral details beyond the schema, such as clarifying that objects are shown in 'filament colors (painted colors too)' and detailing the scope of labeling ('ID and name on it').

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 dense and lacks clear structure, reading more like a technical spec or bulleted requirements list than a coherent explanatory tool 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?

While it is complete in describing the visual output of the image, it is weak on providing broader context regarding the 'plate' itself (e.g., if it's a configuration template or a print job reference).

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?

Given the 0% schema description coverage, the description excels at defining the semantics of each parameter. It specifies valid values for 'view' ('iso | top'), the function of 'zoom' ('frame the objects'), and the contents of 'labels'.

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 clearly states that the tool generates an image of a plate with its objects, which defines its core function. However, it doesn't explicitly state the primary goal (e.g., 'to visualize layout').

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 focuses entirely on the output settings (view, zoom, labels) rather than providing guidance on when to use this tool versus other visualization tools (like preview_layer).

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