preview_plan

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose the important traits: overlays are temporary, and nothing persistent is created (no ghosts, no robot construction). It does not say whether the overlay blocks other calls, whether it requires an active session/client connection, or what happens if seconds is large, so the disclosure is partial.

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 with the action front-loaded and the key exclusion second. Nothing is padded, though the terse phrasing leaves the sentences doing less work than they could.

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 need not be described, but the definition still leaves gaps for a two-parameter tool: the meaning and bounds of seconds, and where plan_id comes from. Adequate as a minimum, not complete.

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% and neither parameter is explained. The description adds no meaning for plan_id (presumably the plan from create_plan) or for seconds, whose role as overlay duration has to be guessed from the name and default of 60.

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 gives a concrete verb and resource ('Draw temporary footprint overlays') and implicitly separates the tool from apply_plan by stating it does not create ghosts or start robot construction. It never explicitly ties the action to a plan created by create_plan, but an agent can still tell what the call does.

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?

Usage is only implied: the 'does not create ghosts or start robot construction' clause signals this is a dry-run/visual check, which suggests calling it before apply_plan. There is no explicit when-to-use, no exclusion of inspect_plan, and no stated prerequisite that a plan must already exist.

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