render_3d

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the output format (PNG) and the save_first side effect (board is saved before rendering), but says nothing about required GUI/display, permissions, or whether rendering is slow/expensive for large boards.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by a compact Args block. It is appropriately sized with little waste, though the Args format is slightly verbose for a five-parameter tool.

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 return values need not be explained, and all parameters are documented. However, with no annotations and a moderately complex render operation, the absence of prerequisite/usage context (open document, GUI requirement) leaves a visible gap.

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 document the params itself, and it does: output_path (.png destination), the full set of side values, width/height units in pixels, and save_first's effect. The side enum values are especially valuable since the schema provides no enum. It could go further on default values, but it compensates well for the coverage gap.

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+resource: rendering a 3D PNG image of the open PCB. This clearly distinguishes it from 2D export siblings like export_svg, export_pdf, and export_gerbers. It stops short of naming an explicit sibling alternative, so it lands at 4 rather than 5.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives (e.g., snapshot_board for a quick raster, export_step for a full 3D model). The phrase 'of the open PCB' is the only usage constraint, and it is implicit at best.

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