trmnl_project_preview

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

Annotations already mark this as non-read-only, open-world, non-idempotent, and non-destructive. The description usefully adds that deviceModel and palette pull live model metadata, that the output is a local HTML artifact to inspect in a browser, and that local Liquid lacks TRMNL-specific filters, which is important behavioral context.

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 short and front-loaded: purpose first, then optional parameter effects, then inspection guidance, then a limitation. Each sentence contributes, though the phrasing is a bit terse and could more clearly signal that the preview is of a stored project.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should explain more about the generated artifact and its return value. It discloses the key Liquid limitation but leaves most parameters and the output location/format underexplained.

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 0% across six parameters, so the description must compensate. It only explains deviceModel and palette, leaving id, layout, variables, and orientation undocumented in both schema and description.

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: generate a local HTML preview using official Framework CSS/JS. It is clear what the tool produces, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings such as trmnl_start_preview, trmnl_get_preview, or trmnl_render_markup.

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 implies usage by saying to open the artifact in a browser and inspect readiness/overflow, but it gives no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives. It does not tell the agent whether this replaces trmnl_start_preview/trmnl_get_preview or when local preview is preferable.

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