emergent_get_preview

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only restates the core function and adds no depth: no mention of response format, failure modes, authentication requirements, or whether the call has any side effects. The word 'Get' implies a read operation, but that is not enough on its own.

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 sentence with no filler, front-loading the main action and the key prerequisite ('built Emergent project'). Every word contributes to the tool's purpose.

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 two-parameter getter, the description plus full schema coverage is mostly adequate, but without an output schema it does not explain the returned structure or behavior when the project is not yet built. The presence of sibling wait_for_build suggests a workflow dependency that is only implied, not stated.

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%, so the schema already documents both jobId and includeVscode, setting the baseline at 3. The description does not add parameter-level meaning beyond the schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('live preview URL') and adds the scope 'for a built Emergent project,' which is unambiguous. It naturally distinguishes from the sibling emergent_screenshot_preview by emphasizing URL rather than an image.

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 phrase 'for a built Emergent project' implies the project must have been built first, providing implicit usage context. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this tool instead of alternatives like emergent_screenshot_preview or whether wait_for_build is a prerequisite.

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