scf_preview_document

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and handles it well: it declares the operation read-only, requires viewer role, specifies the JSON return shape, and states a side-effect boundary (no file rendering). It omits edge behaviors such as handling of unmerged or missing sections, but the core safety and output traits are disclosed.

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?

A single ~25-word sentence that front-loads the verb, resource, and format, then appends only differentiating detail: merged sections and the no-file-rendering boundary. Every clause earns its place with no filler or 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 two-parameter, fully documented read tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, output format, content scope, role requirement, and the file-rendering boundary. It is slightly light on return-value detail beyond 'structured JSON', but nothing essential for a correct call is missing.

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%, and both parameter descriptions already explain what the IDs are and where to obtain them (scf_list_organizations and scf_list_documents). The description text adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (Preview), resource (a document's assembled content), and output format (structured JSON), and clarifies the content as the merged result of generated and edited sections. The qualifier 'without rendering to a file' explicitly distinguishes it from export-style siblings like scf_export_document.

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 clear usage context: use this for read-only previewing of the merged document content as JSON, and it implicitly excludes file-rendering workflows. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives such as scf_get_document or scf_export_document, leaving some when-to-use-what discrimination to inference.

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