preview_game_vehicle

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does add real behavior: mesh sourcing, footprint fallbacks, and the default of showing the largest articulated body alone. However, it never says what the render produces or where it goes (image, viewer, etc.), which is a notable gap for a tool with no output schema.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action followed by behavioral and parameter detail. The second paragraph is dense but each sentence carries distinct information (mesh sourcing, source semantics, body selection default). No filler.

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?

Parameter guidance is solid and behavior is partly covered, but with no annotations and no output schema the description should explain what a 'render' returns and how the result is surfaced. That return-side information is missing, leaving the agent uncertain about the tool's output.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it largely does: it clarifies that source=workshop reads an installed numeric item ID and that body_id selects a body for articulated vehicles. 'name' is left implicit, but the two ambiguous parameters gain meaningful context absent from 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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Render any vehicle from the player's vehicles folder.' The scope (game/player vehicles) distinguishes it from generic siblings like preview_vehicle, and the 'study existing boats' example clarifies intent. It never explicitly contrasts against preview_vehicle or list_game_vehicles, so differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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?

Provides a use case ('to study their existing boats') that implies when to reach for it, but offers no explicit when-not guidance and doesn't name the alternative (preview_vehicle) or the condition that selects it. Usage is inferable but not spelled out.

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