render_preview

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the key traits: speed, output quality (low-res MP4), scope (full edit or a sub-range), and the return value (file path). It omits where the file is written, whether an existing preview is overwritten, and the cost/rendering implications for long timelines.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and output format, then the return value. No filler or redundant restatement.

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 rendering tool with no annotations, no output schema, and zero parameter documentation, the definition leaves important gaps: time units and range semantics, where the MP4 lands, and any cost or overwrite behavior. What is present is accurate but insufficient for confident invocation.

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 0%, so the description must define all three parameters, and it only gestures at two of them via '[start, end]' without units (seconds vs. frames), inclusivity, or behavior when omitted. The required 'project' parameter is never mentioned, and the relationship between start/end and the project timeline is unstated.

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+artifact: produces a fast, low-res MP4 of the edit (or of a [start, end] range) and returns a file path. The 'for review' framing distinguishes it from the heavier 'export' sibling, though it never names that sibling 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?

'for review' plus 'fast low-res' implies this is the quick-check path rather than final delivery, so an agent can infer when to prefer it over export. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement, no mention of the check_frames or timeline_contact_sheet alternatives for cheaper visual inspection, and no prerequisites.

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