siril_get_preview

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the output type (8-bit autostretched PNG) and the effect of the 'linked' parameter, but it doesn't mention prerequisites like having a loaded image, potential failure modes, or side effects (e.g., writing debug copy when save_debug_copy is true). It's adequate but not thorough.

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 exceptionally concise: a one-sentence purpose followed by a bulleted Args list. There is no filler, and the most important detail (what the tool returns) is front-loaded. Every line earns its place.

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?

Given the tool has 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return format (e.g., whether the PNG is base64-encoded), what happens if no image is loaded, or error handling. An agent would have to guess or rely on trial and error for robust usage.

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%, so the description must explain every parameter, and it does. Each argument is clearly described: max_edge for size, x/y/w/h for ROI coordinates, linked for autostretch mode, and save_debug_copy for a debug file. This fully compensates for the empty schema descriptions, adding meaning beyond bare types and defaults.

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 clearly states a specific verb ('Return') and a resource ('8-bit autostretched preview of the current Siril image'), with an optional ROI variant. This unambiguously distinguishes it from siblings like siril_get_stats and siril_get_state, which focus on data rather than images.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't state conditions like 'use this when you need a visual representation' or mention that it should be preferred over siril_get_stats for previews. The only implied context is from the name and purpose, but no when/when-not guidance is given.

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