Show 2ools project preview

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds value beyond annotations by stating the output format ('protected preview and access-checked workspace links') and that source code is not included. No contradictions 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?

Two sentences with zero waste. First sentence explains the core action, second sentence provides usage context and return value. Every word 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?

Given the rich annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, etc.), well-documented parameters, and absence of output schema, the description fully covers what is needed: output type ('preview and workspace links'), security context ('protected', 'access-checked'), and that source code is excluded. No gaps.

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 100% and each parameter has a clear description in the schema. The tool description does not reference parameters or add additional semantics, but the baseline of 3 is appropriate as the schema already does the work.

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 explicitly states the verb ('Render'), the resource ('interactive, read-only card for one saved 2ools version'), and distinguishes from siblings by emphasizing the read-only nature and the specific use case of viewing/sharing results after get_build or get_project.

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 provides clear guidance on when to use: 'Use after get_build or get_project when the user wants to see, open, or share the result.' It does not list explicit exclusions or alternatives, but the context is sufficient for an agent to decide correctly.

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