crate_preview_svgGenerate an isometric SVG preview of a custom wooden crate from a configuration code, with optional dimensions. Preview designs before quoting.
Isometric customer preview drawing of a crate, as SVG markup.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| code | Yes | configuration code, e.g. SC-W19-H21.5-L30.75 | |
| dims | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare a safe, idempotent, closed-world read operation, so safety behavior is covered. The description adds that the output is SVG markup, which is useful, but says nothing about output size, determinism, or what the optional dims flag changes in the drawing.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, which is the right shape for a simple rendering tool. It is close to under-specified rather than over-long, but nothing in it is wasted.
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?
An output schema exists, so the SVG return value need not be explained. However, the unexplained dims parameter and the absence of any usage or prerequisite context leave gaps an agent would want filled for a simple two-parameter tool.
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 only 50%: the required code parameter is documented with an example format (SC-W19-H21.5-L30.75), but dims has no description anywhere. The description does not compensate by explaining what dims toggles, leaving an undocumented 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?
States a specific resource (crate) and output form (isometric SVG markup), so an agent knows exactly what it produces. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like quote_crate, but no sibling renders drawings, so confusion is unlikely.
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 no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, e.g. that this is for visual preview only and not for pricing or validation. An agent must infer that from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.