Preview an exact active Working selector

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false. The description adds that it does not create a preview receipt or authorize materialization, which is useful behavioral context beyond the annotations. It also clarifies the output is the canonical image, but does not mention error conditions or auth requirements.

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 only two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and immediately clarifies side effects. Every sentence adds value without redundant information, achieving ideal conciseness.

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?

Given the tool has three required parameters, no output schema, and no param explanation, the description is incomplete. It covers purpose and side-effect disclaimer, but omits parameter semantics, alternative tool guidance, and any error/edge-case behavior. For a tool of moderate complexity with no output schema, it should provide more context.

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 the description does not mention any of the three required parameters (revisionId, templateId, contentDigest) or their roles. With three required parameters and no explanation, the description fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions, leaving agents unsure how to select valid inputs.

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 the canonical image for an exact active pending Working plan or current Working Head, specifying the verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on working revisions and explicitly noting it does not create a preview receipt or authorize materialization, which aligns with its read-only nature.

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 clear context (use for exact active working revisions) and implies it is for read-only previews without side effects. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not conditions, such as comparing to figure_library_preview_exact or other preview variants.

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