preview_3d

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the export action, return values, and a dependency, but does not explicitly state whether the tool is non-destructive (e.g., no side effects on the dataset) or any permissions needed. It adds some behavioral context but leaves gaps.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: purpose, outputs, requirement. No fluff, well front-loaded, and easy to parse.

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?

Despite having four parameters and an output schema (which is not detailed), the description covers only the return format and a version requirement. It omits parameter-specific guidance and broader usage context, making it incomplete for effective agent invocation.

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 0%, yet the description adds no explanation for any of the four parameters. It does not clarify what 'file_path' points to, or how 'field_name' and 'timestep' affect the export. Only 'output_filename' is implied by the mention of the returned file path. This is severely lacking.

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 exports a dataset to glTF/glB for interactive 3D viewing, and specifies it returns a file path and viewer URL hint. This is a specific verb-resource combination that distinguishes it from siblings like 'render' which produces images.

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 includes a prerequisite (VTK version requirement) and mentions the output, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus siblings (e.g., render, batch_render) or provide when-not-to-use guidance. The context is clear but lacks alternatives or exclusions.

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