render_view

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It transparently describes fallback from PNG to SVG if raster fails, and explains that rendering does not verify geometry. However, it does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only (no side effects), which would be helpful for safety.

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 information-dense but not overly verbose; every sentence adds value. It could be better organized into bullet points or sections for readability, but the current paragraph form is moderately concise and starts with the core purpose.

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 description thoroughly explains parameters and behavior, but it does not describe the return value of the tool. Given no output schema, the agent needs to know whether the tool returns image data, a file path, or something else. This omission reduces completeness.

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%, so the description must fully explain parameters. It does so comprehensively: format with defaults and fallback, direction listing options, objects with examples (name:color pairs), quality levels, clip_plane axes, clip_at default behavior, azimuth/elevation as rotation, and save_to for file output. This adds significant meaning beyond parameter names.

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 opens with 'Render model' and elaborates on formats (png, svg, both), making the tool's purpose clear. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like measure, clearance, and interference which handle geometry verification rather than visual rendering.

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 description explicitly states when to use this tool versus other tools: 'Renders confirm appearance, not geometry — verify boolean operations with measure() before rendering.' It also documents fallback behavior when rasterization fails, guiding the agent on expected behavior.

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