preview_asset

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of transparency. It discloses that the output is a PNG image presented as a visual for the agent, which is useful. However, it omits error handling, whether the operation is read-only, and interactions with invalid UUIDs, so it only partially covers behavior.

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?

One concise sentence that front-loads the purpose and output. No redundant wording, making it easy to scan and understand.

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 simple one-parameter interface and lack of output schema, the description covers the core action and return type. However, it doesn't explain failure modes or how this relates to sibling tools, which could matter in a larger workflow.

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 gives the single parameter 'uuid' a descriptive definition ('Item uuid from search_assets'), covering 100% of the parameter's purpose. The description adds no extra parameter semantics, so the schema effectively carries that weight.

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 fetches a PNG preview of an Iconscout item, specifying the action (Fetch) and resource (PNG preview). It defines the output as an image the agent can see, making the purpose unambiguous. While it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools, the specificity of 'PNG preview' differentiates it from search/get/download tools.

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 when a visual preview is needed but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this over get_asset or download_asset, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. This leaves the agent to infer based on the tool name alone.

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