Export View Sheet

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false, so the write nature is partly covered there. The description adds genuinely new context beyond annotations: the artifacts produced (PNGs + self-contained HTML), that it opens in any browser, and the notable side effect that it 'Restores the viewport camera after rendering' — an important state-restoration disclosure.

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?

Three tight sentences with the core output front-loaded, followed by consumption instructions and the side-effect note. No filler, and the most decision-relevant information (what is produced and how it is shared) comes first.

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?

With no output schema, the description does carry the burden of describing returns and does so well (PNGs plus a self-contained HTML artifact, browser-viewable, PDF-convertible). The viewport-camera restoration side effect is also covered, leaving only minor gaps such as naming/location of produced files, which the output_dir default in the schema partly addresses.

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 description coverage is 100%, so every parameter (notes, title, views, image_size, output_dir) is already documented with defaults and semantics. The description only alludes to 'canonical orthographic + isometric views' and adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 specific verb pair ('Render ... and emit') with the exact resource: orthographic + isometric views as PNGs plus a self-contained HTML sheet. This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like render_view (single render) and export_stl/export_step (single-format geometry exports) without opening any schema.

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 gives context ('suitable for sharing with a mechanical engineer', 'Print -> Save as PDF') which implies the sharing/documentation use case, but never says when to choose this over render_view, export_stl, or export_step, and offers no exclusions or prerequisites.

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