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 does so thoroughly: it discloses no disk writes ('不写盘'), no need to re-call ('不需要重复调用'), live projection of source/annotations/structure, refresh-to-update behavior, and the historical change away from writing preview.html.

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?

Four dense but purposeful sentences, front-loaded with the main action and URL, followed by behavioral details and a historical caveat. Every sentence adds information needed to call the tool correctly or avoid an outdated workflow.

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 no-output-schema, no-annotation tool, it covers return value, side effects, update semantics, and how to access the alternate view. It does not describe failure behavior if source is missing or the preview service cannot be started, but these are minor gaps given the otherwise rich description.

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 covers projectId and dir; the description adds context that artboardId refers to a board within the project and clarifies the relationship between artboard and project. However, artboardId itself has no schema description and the description does not define its format or provenance, leaving one required parameter only implicitly specified.

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 names a specific action ('确认某画板可以在整站画布里观察'), a concrete resource (artboard in whole-site canvas), and a concrete return (http://127.0.0.1 URL). It explicitly distinguishes itself from an artboard-only address, which separates it from sibling preview/render tools.

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?

It gives clear context: use this to verify an artboard is visible in the whole-site canvas and to get the whole-site URL. It explains how to get the artboard-only view (hover and open new tab) and states when repeated calls are unnecessary, though it does not explicitly name an alternative sibling tool.

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