Preview a TOP

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

The read-only and non-destructive hints are already in annotations; the description reinforces these and adds return format details (scaled image + caption) and the constraint that only TOPs work. This adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations.

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 two sentences, front-loading the core action and read-only nature, then adding return details. Every sentence is informative, with no unnecessary words.

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's simplicity (3 parameters with full schema coverage, annotations present), the description covers purpose, usage constraints, return format, and limitations. It is complete and sufficient for an agent.

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?

The input schema already provides full descriptions for all parameters (100% coverage). The description mentions scaling by width/height, which aligns with schema but adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what's documented.

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 the tool captures a TOP node's output as an inline PNG image, a read-only operation. It explicitly distinguishes from other node types (CHOP/SOP/etc.) which have no image, providing clarity on the resource and verb.

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 specifies the tool is for previewing TOP node outputs, is read-only, and not applicable to other node types. While it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools for CHOP/SOP, the context is clear enough for an agent to decide when to use it.

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