preview_vehicle_diagnostics

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose real behavioral content: the color-coded overlay semantics and the fact that it reads draft block coordinates. However, it never confirms the operation is read-only/non-mutating, says nothing about permissions, rendering cost, or how the draft geometry is resolved.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the primary visual behavior and followed by the conditional extra overlay. No padding, though the second sentence mixes preview-type context with a data-source note rather than cleanly routing usage.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the visual semantics are covered. But with four undocumented parameters and zero annotation coverage, the definition leaves key invocation details (especially layer and the required design input) unexplained.

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% across four parameters (design, layer, yaw, pitch), and the description mentions none of them. Since the schema does not document them and the description does not compensate, an agent gets no meaning for 'layer' enum values or what yaw/pitch control.

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-plus-resource ('Show ... over geometry') and enumerates exactly what the diagnostic overlay contains: red fault parts, amber blocked exits, blue wheel/steering arrows. That is a clear, non-tautological purpose, but it never distinguishes itself from sibling previews such as preview_vehicle or preview_game_vehicle.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance and no named alternative. The phrase about repair/assembly previews implies a context but does not tell the agent which sibling to pick for which task, leaving selection to inference.

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