openvsp.preview

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The phrase 'private model copy' hints that the original is not modified, but it does not explain side effects, permissions, output delivery, or error behavior. This is minimal information for a tool with such a rich request schema.

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 extremely concise (one sentence), which is efficient, but it is under-specified. It is not appropriately sized for the tool's complexity; it omits essential context. Front-loading is fine, but the content is insufficient.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (many parameters, nested objects, an output schema) and no annotations, the description is far from complete. It does not explain what the output looks like, how results are returned, or any operational details an agent would need to invoke it correctly.

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?

The description adds no meaning about parameters. The single 'request' object is not explained; key fields like geometry_file, output_dir, or set_commands are not mentioned. Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate but fails to do so.

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 clearly states the action (Export) and the resource (SVG/STL from a private model copy). It implies a non-destructive operation and differentiates from tools like run_vspaero or create_model. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings like batch_export, so a small deduction for missing explicit differentiation.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, when not to use, or how it relates to other export or preview tools. An agent receives no help in choosing this tool over others.

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