Render preview

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

The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond the annotations: it flattens the project, optionally writes a file, excludes clipping masks/adjustment layers/layer effects, and reports what was skipped. This is rich, useful disclosure and does not contradict the annotations.

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?

Three concise sentences deliver purpose, option, and limitations without redundancy. The key behavior is front-loaded, and every sentence earns its place.

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 3-parameter tool with full schema coverage, the description adequately covers purpose, behavior, limitations, and response content. The only notable gap is lack of explicit guidance on choosing this over export_flattened, which is a minor omission.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds minimal parameter-specific meaning beyond noting the optional file save, which aligns with outputPath. This matches the baseline of 3 for full schema coverage.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Flattens the project') and the output (a PNG preview image). It is clear and understandable, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling export_flattened, relying instead on the 'preview' framing to imply distinction.

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 'so the model can see the composition' implies the use case, but the description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like export_flattened or open_in_compositor, nor does it mention exclusions.

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