preview_script

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

With no annotations, the description does add real behavioral context: matplotlib Agg, CPU-only execution, and grammar group-color preservation. It omits the file-writing side effects of a preview (does output_path overwrite?), timeout behavior, and failure modes, which matter for a tool that produces files.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and output, no filler. Every sentence adds information, though the content is thin given the undocumented parameters.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained, but the description is still incomplete: none of the four inputs are characterized, there are no annotations, and the file-writing behavior of a preview tool with an output_path is unaddressed.

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%, so the description must carry parameter meaning, but it says nothing about any of the four parameters. The script input, the seed, the 120-second timeout, and especially output_path (which clearly controls the returned preview path) are all left unexplained.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Render an EisenScript') and names the concrete outputs (PNG preview path plus OBJ). It never mentions sibling tools like preview_obj, render_script, or validate_script, so an agent can't tell from the text alone why this differs from those.

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 word 'preview' and the note that it is CPU-only, no-GPU imply a lightweight check before a full render, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no alternative is named. Usage is inferable but never stated.

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