List @Preview composables

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description adds value by specifying that the tool performs a static scan (no runtime side effects) and returns specific artifacts (locations and annotation parameters). This clarifies behavior beyond the safety profile, but it does not detail the scanning scope (e.g., whether it scans compiled code or only source) or performance characteristics.

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?

The description is a single sentence of 18 words that immediately conveys the core action and result. Every word contributes meaning, and the structure is front-loaded with the verb 'list' and the key object '@Preview composables'. There is zero wasted text.

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?

The description states it returns 'locations and parsed annotation parameters' but does not specify the format (e.g., file paths, line numbers) or any limitations (e.g., only previews in configured modules, ignores dynamic compositions). With no output schema, the agent needs more detail to correctly interpret the results. However, the description is minimally adequate for a listing tool.

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%, with each parameter having a clear description in the schema. The tool description does not elaborate on parameters beyond the schema, which is acceptable given the high coverage. The baseline for such cases is 3, and no additional semantic value is provided.

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 action ('statically scans'), the target ('configured Android/KMM project for Jetpack Compose @Preview functions'), and the result ('returns their locations plus parsed annotation parameters'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'devilge_get_compose_preview_source' or 'devilge_get_compose_previews_tree', which retrieve source or tree structures for specific previews, making the purpose both specific and well-differentiated.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings (e.g., 'devilge_get_compose_previews_tree'). It does not mention when not to use it, such as if a runtime scan is needed, nor does it list any prerequisites. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone, which is insufficient for optimal tool selection.

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