get_component_preview

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden. It reveals that the tool returns a URL (not HTML), that the result requires a browser to view, and explicitly states 'Does NOT fetch HTML.' For a simple tool, this is strong behavioral disclosure.

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 three short sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: stating the purpose, giving usage instructions, and clarifying non-behavior and an alternative. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words.

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 tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description is quite complete. It states the output (a URL), the source (public uiverse.io), the usage (browser for animations), and the distinction from get_component. It lacks parameter explanations, but that gap is captured in parameter semantics, and the overall description sufficiently covers the tool's purpose and behavior.

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 schema has 0% description coverage and the description does not mention the id and category parameters at all. It refers to 'a component' but provides no explanation of how to identify it, leaving the agent to infer from the schema's enum and the parameter name. This does not compensate for the missing schema descriptions.

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 uses the specific verb 'Return' and names the resource as the public uiverse.io URL for a component preview. It explicitly differentiates from get_component by saying 'use get_component for code,' which makes it clear this tool is for visual previews only.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool (to see a component rendered in a browser) and when not to (when code is needed, use get_component). This gives clear context for tool selection among siblings.

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