preview

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It usefully reveals that previews read from SOURCE MEDIA rather than from the XML and that Final Cut Pro need not be opened. However, it does not disclose whether rendered proxies or check outputs persist as files, what side effects occur, or what output format the agent should expect.

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 compact, front-loaded with the main value proposition, and every sentence adds information. It avoids restating the tool name or schema boilerplate and ends with a clean action list.

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 five distinct actions, no output schema, and no annotations, yet the description never explains what each action returns or what arguments each action needs apart from a generic filepath example. An agent selecting between preview_render and preview_timeline would still lack enough detail to invoke the right action correctly.

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 100%: both action and args have descriptions, and action is an enum. The description reinforces the action meanings by naming the five action values and clarifying that the check reads source media, but it does not add detailed semantics for the args object beyond the schema's single example.

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 opens with a clear, concrete purpose: 'See the edit without opening Final Cut Pro.' It then enumerates exactly what the tool produces (proxy video, contact sheet, single frame, filmstrip-plus-waveform check) and lists all five actions. This is a specific verb-plus-resource statement that distinguishes preview from sibling tools like inspect or diagnose.

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 description gives a practical context for use: preview output can be generated from source media without launching Final Cut Pro, and preview_check should be run 'to confirm a fix actually landed.' It does not explicitly exclude cases or name alternative sibling tools, but it clearly indicates when preview is the right choice.

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