look

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full behavioral disclosure and does so thoroughly. It explains close-up cropping behavior (parts outside the focus region are left out), shared scale across panels, grid lines with rulers, hidden-part omission for strokes, and the meaning of shading colors. This far exceeds typical descriptions.

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 long but information-dense; nearly every clause adds value and front-loads the main purpose before parameter details. It could be better structured with formatting like bullets, but no sentence is wasted.

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 10-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the most important behavioral and parameter aspects, including edge cases like close-up resolution behavior. It falls short on matcap/size/name semantics and does not explicitly describe the return format beyond 'clay contact sheet,' but overall it is remarkably complete.

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 compensate, and it explains views, focus, zoom, resolution, strokes, grid, and shading in meaningful detail. However, three parameters—name, size, and matcap—are not described at all, including the required name. This leaves noticeable gaps for a 10-parameter tool.

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 'Build the mesh and return a clay contact sheet,' a specific verb and resource that clearly identifies this as a rendering/preview tool. It is easily distinguished from siblings like list_models, history, or export, though it does not explicitly name an alternative. The purpose is unmistakable.

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 offers rich context on when to use specific options: strokes=True for checking placement, raking for revealing shallow forms, and curvature for analyzing convexity/concavity. It gives practical guidance (e.g., 'check placement before judging form') but does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over siblings or include exclusions.

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