supportpages_preview_article

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

The annotations only declare it is non-read-only, non-destructive and closed-world; the description adds real information beyond that by stating the preview is self-contained, that no network requests or article scripts execute, and that a file path and URI are returned. This is meaningful sandbox/behavior disclosure that the annotations do not carry. It stops short of noting whether files are overwritten or where the preview is written.

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?

Two tight sentences with no filler, and the core action leads. The second sentence usefully bundles the return shape with the sandbox guarantees, though it could be split for scannability.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be described, and the sandbox behavior is covered. What's missing is workflow context: which article gets previewed, whether the tool must run after prepare/finalize, and whether repeated calls overwrite the previous preview. For a one-parameter tool this is adequate but has an evident gap.

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 100% for the single required parameter artifact_dir, so the schema already explains it as a workspace-relative article output directory. The description adds nothing about this parameter, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 ('Create a self-contained local preview'), which is more than a restatement of the name. However it never says what is being previewed (the article in a given directory? the current draft?) nor distinguishes itself from nearby tools like supportpages_validate_article, supportpages_prepare_article or supportpages_finalize_article.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus validate_article or prepare_article, and no stated prerequisites (e.g. must the article already be prepared or finalized before previewing?). The agent must infer placement in the workflow from the name alone.

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