render_view

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds workflow context (use as a checkpoint) but says nothing about the return artifact — image vs. text, resolution tradeoffs, or cost of rendering — which is the behavior an agent most needs here.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the output description then the usage rule. Nothing is redundant and no sentence could be dropped without losing information.

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?

Six optional parameters, no output schema, and only 50% schema coverage. The description establishes the workflow role well but leaves gaps on what actually comes back (single image vs. 2x2 sheet, resolution effect) that an agent needs in order to choose size/views sensibly.

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 50%: views and bodies are documented inline, while size, highlight_edges and highlight_faces have no schema descriptions. The description gives a purpose for the highlight parameters (confirm a selection before filleting/cutting), adding real meaning, but never mentions size or multi-view output, leaving half the surface unexplained.

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 concrete output — 'a shaded picture of the model' — which is clearly distinct from every sibling (modeling, selection, measurement tools). The verb is implied rather than stated ('render'), but the resource and result are unambiguous.

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?

Gives explicit timing guidance — after every few edits and before reporting a result — and a concrete verification pattern tied to siblings (highlight faces/edges before filleting or cutting). It stops short of naming when *not* to call it or naming a visual alternative, so it is not a full 5.

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