preview_buffer

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It implies a read-only operation by saying 'Show', and mentions 'placement issues' but does not detail any side effects, auth needs, or performance characteristics. Additional transparency about error behavior or data freshness would improve it.

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 two sentences long, front-loads the primary purpose, and immediately provides a key usage distinction. Every word adds value with no redundancy.

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 preview tool with one optional parameter and an output schema, the description covers the main outputs. However, it could be more complete by mentioning whether it requires an active buffer or how it handles empty states. Also, it only distinguishes from get_buffer_json, but not from other similar siblings like validate_buffer.

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 one parameter (show_grids) with 0% description coverage. The description does not explain what this parameter does, how setting it to false affects the output, or its relation to the mentioned 'per-tab grid maps'. The parameter's meaning is left entirely to the schema's title and default.

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 explicitly states the tool shows the current working buffer's structure, per-tab grid maps, and placement issues. It also distinguishes itself from a sibling tool (get_buffer_json) by noting that it never dumps the whole JSON.

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 provides a clear directive: use get_buffer_json for a full dump instead of this tool. However, it does not address when to use this tool in relation to other siblings like validate_buffer or lint tools, leaving some ambiguity.

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