Show 2ools project preview

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the description only needs to add context. It adds useful behavioral details: returns protected preview and access-checked workspace links, without source code. This goes beyond the annotations by describing the output's security and access characteristics.

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, each contributing distinct value: purpose, usage, and output/security. No filler or repetition, making it both concise and well-structured.

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 simple read-only tool with two well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description fully covers what the tool does, when to use it, and what it returns. No gaps are apparent.

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?

The input schema provides 100% coverage with descriptive parameter texts ('Project containing the saved version' and 'Saved version to display'). The description does not add further meaning to the parameters, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 tool renders an interactive, read-only card for one saved version, with a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes the tool from siblings by noting it provides protected preview and workspace links without source code.

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 explicit usage context: 'Use after get_build or get_project when the user wants to see, open, or share the result.' This is a clear when-to-use, but it does not explicitly mention when not to use or name alternatives, so it stops short of the highest bar.

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