render_3d

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

Annotations already mark this as readOnly and idempotent, so no mutation warning is needed. The description adds useful behavioral context: it returns a path to a rendered PNG and explains zoom magnification semantics.

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, no filler. The core action and key parameter constraints are front-loaded, and every clause adds useful 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?

The tool is simple and annotations cover safety, but the unexplained 'path' and 'output' parameters create a real usage gap. It is adequate for a basic render call, but an agent may not know how to control output or identify the input board path.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must carry parameter meaning. It explains 'side' and 'zoom' well, but the 'path' and 'output' parameters are never defined; 'path' in the description sounds like a return value, not a parameter.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Render the board to a PNG'. The qualifier 'raytraced-lite' distinguishes it from the sibling render_layers and makes the tool's purpose 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?

The 'so you can view it' phrase implies the intended use case, and side/zoom options give helpful context. However, it does not explicitly explain when to choose render_3d over siblings like render_layers or other viewing tools.

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