Get a theme preview URL

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

The description discloses the tokenised, expiring nature of the URL and the fact that it renders draft content privately without affecting others. These behavioral details go beyond the readOnlyHint and destructiveHint annotations, which already mark it as a safe operation. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Three sentences with zero redundancy. The key value proposition (private, no impact on public site) is front-loaded, followed by usage guidance and the expiry warning. Every sentence adds distinct value.

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 read-only, zero-required-parameter tool with a rich schema, the description covers the core workflow (preview before publishing), the privacy guarantee, and the expiry caveat. It lacks explicit mention of the return value format (a URL string), but the tool name and title make that obvious enough that a 5 is not warranted.

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%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds context around theme (defaults to most recent draft) and site_id (single-site automatic usage), but these are already covered in the schema descriptions. The description's mention of token expiry is generic, not param-specific, so it doesn't add meaningful param semantics beyond the schema.

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's function: generate a private, tokenised preview URL for a draft theme. It specifies the verb (get), resource (preview URL), and context (draft theme rendering), and distinguishes it from activation/publishing tools like publish_draft_theme and activate_theme.

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 explains when to use it—checking a draft theme's rendered site before publishing—and notes that it does not affect what others see, distinguishing it from publishing/activating. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives like publish_draft_theme, but the context is clear.

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