anon_get_materials_resource_id_versions_version_preview

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

Annotations already declare this read-only, idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds real behavioral detail beyond that: the different response media types, the inline mime whitelist, and the 404 fallback. It omits actual size limits and whether thumbnails are generated on demand.

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?

Front-loads the purpose, then the three response branches, then the path and implicit project note. Dense but every sentence carries distinct information; the raw endpoint line is slightly redundant.

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 single-param read tool with no output schema, it covers what an agent needs: the permission gate, the implicit project, and the three possible responses. Missing only numeric limits for inline previews and thumbnail availability.

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 coverage is 0%, but schema descriptions carry no param info; the description supplies meaningful semantics anyway: the project is inferred from the API key, which is genuinely non-obvious. It does not explain resourceId or version formats, so it only partly compensates for the coverage gap.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: previews a version of a material resource, with the content-type outcome spelled out. It does not name siblings like anon_get_materials_resource_id_versions_version_download, but the endpoint line disambiguates the operation.

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?

Explains the resolution logic (thumbnail vs inline whitelist vs 404) and states the permission gate, so the agent knows when a 404 is expected. It never points to the sibling download endpoint as the alternative for non-previewable files.

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