preview_knowledge_base

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the description's added value is the clarification that it does not read document text and does not save configuration, plus the note that default patterns match Markdown. That is meaningful behavioural context beyond the annotations, though return-format specifics are absent.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and the side-effect constraints. No filler; only the slightly dangling "Defaults match Markdown" phrasing costs a point.

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 read-only preview tool with annotations covering the safety profile and no output schema, the description is mostly sufficient, but with 0% schema coverage the unexplained kb_id parameter and include/exclude semantics leave a real gap an agent cannot close from structured fields alone.

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 0% across 4 parameters. The description compensates only partially: root is characterized as a user-supplied absolute directory and include/exclude defaults are described as Markdown-matching, but kb_id and the include/exclude syntax are never explained.

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 (Preview) and resource (user-supplied absolute directory) plus the scope boundary that no document text is read and no configuration is saved. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly name connect_knowledge_base, which is the sibling an agent would otherwise confuse it with.

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?

"Show the file count, patterns and sample paths to the user before connecting" gives an explicit temporal/usage condition that maps onto the connect_knowledge_base sibling. There is no stated when-not-to-use, but the pre-connection context is clear.

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