Render a 3D canvas scene and see it from multiple angles

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 rendering happens in a headless browser and returns screenshots. It mentions the need for specific global objects for multi-angle views. However, it does not fully disclose side effects (e.g., whether the file is modified), error handling, rate limits, or authentication needs, which would be expected with no annotations.

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 concise at 6 sentences, front-loaded with the main action and purpose. It uses emphasis ('ALWAYS') to highlight critical guidance. Every sentence adds value with no redundant or irrelevant content.

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 the tool's complexity (10 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is mostly complete. It covers workflow, prerequisites, and specific usage tips. However, it lacks details about the return format of screenshots (e.g., base64, file paths) and does not address error conditions, which reduces completeness.

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 high (90%), so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the multi-angle mechanism and hinting at distance_factor usage for close-ups. However, it does not compensate for the undocumented format parameter (no description in schema). Overall, it adds moderate context beyond 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?

The description clearly states the tool renders an HTML file with a 3D canvas and returns screenshots from multiple angles. It uses specific verbs ('renders', 'returns') and the resource (3D scene HTML). It distinguishes from siblings like get_guidelines (guidance), inspect_scene (inspect), interact_scene (interact), and validate_scene (validate) by focusing on rendering and image capture.

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 explicitly advises when to use: 'ALWAYS call this after writing or editing scene HTML'. It mentions prerequisites for multi-angle views (window.__scene or window.__setView) and suggests calling get_guidelines topic 'workflow' for further guidance. It does not provide explicit when-not-to-use scenarios but gives clear context for when it's applicable.

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