agent_preview

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

The annotations (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false) already establish that this is a safe, non-executing, local operation, and "Preview" is consistent with that. The description adds the symbolic-reference convention, which is genuinely useful context, but it never says whether steps are validated, whether refs are resolved and reported, or what the preview returns.

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?

A single tight sentence with the core purpose front-loaded and the reference syntax appended as a second clause. No filler, though the brevity comes at the cost of specification covered under other dimensions.

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?

This is a batch-orchestration tool (up to 128 steps, aliases, wait flags, cross-step references) with no output schema and 0% parameter documentation; one sentence cannot carry that load. An agent cannot determine execution semantics or how to construct a valid step list from this definition 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% and the schema has a nested step object with method, params, as, and wait, yet the description explains only the {$ref: alias.id} syntax. It leaves the meaning of label, steps, method, wait, and the alias-binding behavior of "as" entirely undocumented in both schema and prose.

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?

"Preview" is a clear verb, but the object "composable official calls" is jargon that never states these are batched MCP tool invocations described by method/params steps. It also fails to distinguish this generic preview from the many specialized preview siblings (agent_loop_preview, agent_arrange_preview, agent_midi_preview), leaving the agent to guess which preview to pick.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus agent_apply (the obvious execute counterpart) or any of the specialized preview tools. No prerequisites, no exclusions, no alternatives are named.

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