Preview fds

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context beyond that: no file is written, the output is deck text mirroring the GUI FDS Preview dialog, and truncation behavior is surfaced via max_lines. It stops short of describing the exact return shape.

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 tight, front-loaded sentences: what it does, how to filter, why it matters. The trailing bulc-mcp rules tag is terse and slightly cryptic but is a deliberate cross-reference rather than padding.

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?

With no output schema and only two optional parameters, the description supplies what an agent needs: output is deck text, nothing is persisted, and output size can be capped. It could have stated whether the full deck or just a slice is returned by default, but the gaps are small.

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%, so both parameters (including the default of 200 lines and the 'reply says how many were cut' behavior) are already documented in the schema. The description's examples of namelist groups duplicate rather than extend that, 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?

States a specific verb (render) and resource (current project as FDS deck text) with the critical qualifier that nothing is written to disk. That qualifier alone distinguishes it from project_export_fds and fds_apply_text without opening either schema.

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?

Gives concrete when-to-use guidance ('fastest way to check that a mesh / output / geometry change lands in the deck the way you expect') and explains how the two params narrow the view. It implies the contrast with file-writing export tools but never names the alternative sibling explicitly.

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