preview

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden, and it does convey the core behavior (generating a 2D preview and exporting to image/vector formats). It does not disclose performance characteristics, side effects, or the meaning of the full-render option, which would give an agent a more complete safety and cost model.

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 two tight sentences with no filler: it states the action, the supported export formats, and the camera-control affordance. Every sentence earns its place, and the main purpose is front-loaded.

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 an 11-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, this description is too thin. It omits how the generated file is returned, the distinction from the render sibling, and any caveats (e.g., vector export implications), leaving the agent to rely entirely on the schema for operational context.

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 100%, so the parameter documentation already carries the load; the description's 'Use camera settings to control the view' loosely reinforces the camera parameter but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema. It also doesn't clarify interactions (e.g., width/height only for PNG), though that is already partly implied by the schema.

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?

Description clearly states a specific action—'Generate a 2D preview of OpenSCAD code'—and the resource being acted on, so the tool's purpose is immediately understandable. It also lists output formats, strengthening clarity. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this from the sibling 'render' tool, since both could plausibly produce an image from OpenSCAD code.

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?

There is no guidance on when to choose preview over render or how it relates to validate/info. The description says what the tool does but never states a use case, prerequisites, or exclusions, so an agent must infer when it is the appropriate sibling.

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