preview_html

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the key non-destructive trait ('without writing'), but does not explain what the preview returns, whether any resources are consumed, or other behaviors. This adds value but lacks depth.

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 a single concise sentence, but it is under-specified for the tool's complexity. It has no fluff, but also lacks sufficient structure or detail to be highly useful.

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 tool has a complex schema with nested objects and multiple input modes, but no output schema or annotations. The one-sentence description does not explain the inputs, output format, or constraints, making it insufficient for reliable use.

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 0%, and the description provides no information about the six parameters. It does not compensate for the schema gap, leaving users to guess the meaning of 'html', 'content', 'template', 'sections', 'options', and 'budget'.

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's function: preview a rendered HTML string without writing. This distinguishes it from sibling write tools like write_raw_html and write_html_file, and from read/format tools. The verb 'preview' and scope 'without writing' are specific and unambiguous.

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 phrase 'without writing' provides clear context that this tool is for non-destructive previewing, implying when to use it over write-oriented tools. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, so it stops short of full guidance.

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