Preview one provider-qualified exact template

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

The description adds significant context beyond annotations: it mentions the optional copy-to-directory side effect, which aligns with readOnlyHint=false, and clarifies it does not authorize materialization. This is useful context not derivable from the annotations, though it does not detail overwrite behavior or permissions.

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 two sentences with no filler. It front-loads the primary function and then adds the critical compatibility caveat, earning its place with every word.

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 is missing essential usage details: there is no output schema to explain the returned image content beyond the phrase 'standard MCP image content', and exactSelector is unexplained. It also does not differentiate this tool from the similar preview_exact and preview_exact_headless siblings, making it insufficient for an agent to confidently select this 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate but barely does. It hints that destination must be a 'trusted absolute directory' but provides no guidance on providerId or exactSelector, which are required and structurally complex.

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 tool returns a selected preview as standard MCP image content and optionally copies it to a directory. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by declaring it is a compatibility tool that does not authorize materialization, which is a key differentiator from plan/apply materialization tools.

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 implies usage for previewing without materialization authorization, but does not explicitly name alternative tools like preview_exact or preview_exact_headless. The 'compatibility tool' phrase hints at legacy use but no clear when-to-use instructions are given.

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