tenki_resolve_preview_token

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds the conceptual output, sandbox/port, but provides no additional behavioral details such as token validation behavior, error cases, or response format. No contradiction exists.

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 one sentence with no filler; it front-loads the verb and object and adds only a brief 'advanced' caution. This is appropriately sized for a single-parameter resolver tool.

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 one-parameter, read-only, idempotent tool, the description is largely sufficient: the input is unambiguousainer, side effects are covered by annotations, and the result type is described at a conceptual level. It falls short of full completeness because there is no output schema and the exact structure of the resolved sandbox/port is unspecified.

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%, and the token parameter is already clearly described as 'The preview token to resolve'. The prose description adds no extra details about token format, constraints, or interpretation.

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 action, 'Resolve', and a specific resource, 'preview token', and clarifies the result as 'the sandbox/port it points at'. It is not tautological and clearly identifies a distinct read-only lookup, though it does not explicitly name or differentiate sibling preview 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?

The intended use is implied: an agent would call this when it has a preview token and wants to know where it points. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over related preview tools such as tenki_get_preview_url or tenki_open_preview, and the parenthetical 'advanced' is only a weak contextual hint.

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