preview

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does disclose that the tool is a passive inspection aid producing images rather than modifying the model, and that object ids appear as labels. It does not say how the images are returned (content blocks? file paths?), whether rendering is expensive, or whether the bed must already contain objects, which are meaningful gaps for an image-producing tool.

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 purpose and the usage hint are front-loaded in the first two sentences, and the Args block is minimal. Slightly wasteful to repeat a single-parameter signature, but overall tight.

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 tool whose entire output is imagery, with no output schema and no annotations, the description should say what the agent receives back. It conveys the view types and labels but stops short of the return mechanics, leaving the picture of how to consume the result incomplete.

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% and the schema's only description-free parameter defaults to null, so the description's "bed: bed name (default: bed-1)" genuinely adds meaning. However, it never says how bed names are discovered or what happens if the named bed doesn't exist, and the stated default (bed-1) differs from the schema default (null), which an agent may read as an inconsistency.

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 states concretely what the tool produces: a rendered picture of a bed in top and iso views with objects labeled by id. That is specific enough to distinguish it from mutating siblings like slice or arrange, though the distinction from open_viewer (interactive view) is only 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?

"Use it to check orientation and layout" gives one positive use case, and "before slicing" implies a pre-slice timing. There is no guidance on when not to use it, and open_viewer — the obvious alternative for inspecting the scene — is never named or differentiated.

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