render_preview

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey side effects. It states output is a JPEG and that current edits are applied, implying read-only preview, but doesn't explicitly declare non-destructive behavior or resource requirements. This leaves some ambiguity about whether the operation mutates state.

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 short sentences, immediately front-loaded with the action and purpose. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 2-parameter preview tool, the description covers the return format (JPEG), the size parameter semantics, and the preview context. It lacks an explicit note about non-destructiveness, but overall it provides sufficient guidance for basic 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?

The description adds semantic meaning for 'size' as 'longest edge in px (256-4096)', which is not in the schema. It doesn't elaborate on image_id, but its purpose is self-evident from context; this adequately compensates for the schema's 0% coverage.

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 specifies 'Render the image WITH its current edits applied and return the JPEG' — a specific verb and resource with scope. It distinguishes from siblings like get_image or export_image by emphasizing 'visually inspect' as a preview purpose.

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 for inspecting intermediate results after edits, but doesn't explicitly state when not to use or name alternatives like export_image. The size range information suggests configuration, but not when to prefer this over other tools.

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