preview

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

The annotations already establish that this is a read-only, non-open-world operation. The description adds that the output is an inline PNG of the active canvas, which is useful, but it does not explain rendering behavior such as scale, padding, or background effects beyond the schema defaults.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary wording. It is appropriately sized for a simple preview operation.

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 simple read-only preview tool with no output schema, the description covers the core behavior: rendering an inline PNG of the active canvas. It remains incomplete because it does not explain the three optional parameters or how this differs from related export tools.

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?

The input schema has three parameters with 0% description coverage, and the description provides no information about what scale, padding, or background mean or how they affect the preview. The description therefore does not compensate for the schema's lack of parameter documentation.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: render an inline PNG image preview of the active Excalidraw canvas. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools such as export_png or get_scene.

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 phrase 'inline PNG image preview' implies this is for quickly viewing the current canvas rather than exporting a file. However, the description gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no comparison with alternatives like export_png.

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