render_preview

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true, so the description doesn't need to restate that. The description adds context that the tool creates a preview file (default .avi) and is for quick motion checks. It doesn't disclose details like whether it overwrites existing files, what happens to the current render settings, or whether it affects the scene. Given the destructive hint, the description could have added more context about what gets overwritten or changed, but it does add some value beyond annotations.

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 concise, with two short sentences in both Chinese and English. It front-loads the core purpose and default format. The bilingual repetition is somewhat redundant but serves a clear audience purpose. Every sentence earns its place, though the English translation is essentially a duplicate of the Chinese, which is acceptable for a bilingual 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?

For a tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and usage context. However, it doesn't mention what the output file contains, how long the preview is, or any side effects (e.g., overwriting existing preview files). Given the destructiveHint annotation, an agent might need to know if this overwrites an existing file at the path. The description is adequate but not complete for a tool with destructive potential.

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 the schema already documents the single 'path' parameter. The description adds that omitting the path uses the preview folder, which is useful context beyond the schema. However, it doesn't add details about file extension handling, directory creation, or naming conventions. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema covers the parameter well and the description adds a small but useful clarification.

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 states a specific verb ('generate'/'make') and resource ('preview animation file'), and clarifies the default format (.avi). It distinguishes itself from full rendering by noting it's for a quick motion check without a formal render. However, it doesn't explicitly name a sibling alternative like render_animation or anim_play_preview, so differentiation from siblings is implicit rather than explicit.

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 clearly indicates when to use it: for a quick motion check without a full render. This implies it should be used instead of full render tools like render_animation or render_frames. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools, so the guidance is clear but not fully explicit.

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