appwrite_get_file_preview

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions transformations but fails to specify the return format (binary image data vs URL), error behavior for non-image files, or whether the operation is read-only/safe.

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 and appropriately brief. However, the '[UNIFIED]' tag at the beginning wastes valuable description space without adding meaning, preventing a perfect score.

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?

For a tool with 13 parameters offering complex image transformation capabilities, zero schema descriptions, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks critical details about parameter formats, valid values for enums (like gravity), and return value structure.

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%, requiring the description to compensate significantly. While it mentions 'transformations (resize, crop, etc.)' as a category hinting at width/height parameters, it provides no semantics for the other 10 optional parameters like 'gravity', 'output', or 'background' which have non-obvious meanings.

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 gets an 'image preview with transformations' and specifies the constraint 'Only works for image files'. However, the '[UNIFIED]' prefix is unexplained noise that slightly reduces clarity, and it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like appwrite_get_file_view or appwrite_download_file.

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 constraint 'Only works for image files' provides implicit guidance on when to use (image files only), but there is no explicit comparison to sibling tools like appwrite_get_file or appwrite_download_file to guide selection when multiple file-related options exist.

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