render

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It explicitly states what is returned ('Returns the image inline') and the side effect on the live viewer, which is useful context beyond the schema. It does not mention potential failure modes or performance characteristics, but the core side-effect disclosure is present.

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 two concise sentences, with the core action first followed by the key behavioral details. There is no redundant or filler 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?

A preview-render tool with no output schema is adequately covered by the statement that an inline image is returned, and the schema covers all parameters. The main completeness gap is the absence of when-to-use guidance relative to the rendering-focused siblings.

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 100%, and the schema already documents all six parameters, including the camera format and default dimensions. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, which matches the baseline of 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 names a specific action and resource: 'Render OpenSCAD code to a preview image,' which is clear and not a tautology. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling rendering tools such as render_turntable or render_multiview, so it stops short of a 5.

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 guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives like export, validate, render_turntable, or render_multiview. The only contextual hint is the viewer-update side effect, which does not help an agent choose among rendering variants.

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