fonts_preflight

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine value beyond that by naming what is deliberately NOT verified (glyph coverage, embedding permissions), which sets accurate expectations about scope and limits false assumptions.

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?

A single sentence with zero waste; the positive scope is front-loaded and the caveat follows, making it easy to scan.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and the description covers both what is checked and what is left unverified. The remaining gap is the undocumented parameters, which leaves callers to rely on field names alone.

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% across three parameters, so the description carries the full burden, yet it explains none of them. The mention of "local cached font inventory" loosely hints at refreshFonts but gives no guidance on path, workspaceId, or when to refresh.

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 ("Checks") and a precisely scoped resource ("SVG-declared font families against the local cached font inventory"). An agent can tell it apart from fonts_list without opening the schema, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 "preflight" implies a validation-before-action context, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or pointer to the sibling fonts_list. Usage is inferable but not spelled out.

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