Create free 2ools preview

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

The description adds key behavioral traits beyond annotations: the preview is temporary (24-hour expiration), free, authless, and read-only. Annotations already cover idempotency (idempotentHint: true) and non-destructiveness (destructiveHint: false), but the description enriches this with usage constraints. No contradiction with 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 three sentences with no waste. The first sentence states the core purpose, the second adds constraints (temporary, authless, expiration), and the third clarifies the prerequisite. Each sentence earns its place.

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?

The description covers the tool's purpose, constraints, and prerequisite, but it omits the return value (likely a URL or identifier). Since there is no output schema, the description should ideally indicate what the agent receives after a successful call. The omission leaves a gap for an agent to understand the full interaction.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The tool description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema—it reinforces that the HTML must be 'complete' and 'already created in this chat,' but does not provide new parameter-specific details. The schema already sufficiently describes each 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?

The description clearly states the action (turn a standalone HTML document into a preview) and the resource (2ools preview). It distinguishes from siblings by specifying 'already created in this chat' and noting it does not generate the page, making it distinct from render_project_preview or similar tools.

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 explicitly instructs the user to write the HTML first before calling the tool, which is a clear prerequisite. However, it does not mention when not to use this tool or suggest alternatives, leaving some ambiguity for the agent.

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