preview_batch

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states 'no InDesign writes', making the non-destructive nature clear, and 'against the cached Document Model' indicates it operates on cached data. However, it does not disclose what the dry-run returns or potential side effects beyond writes, so it falls short of a perfect score.

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 three short sentences, each adding critical information: purpose/safety, dependency, and preference. There is no fluff or repetition; it is perfectly front-loaded with the most important information.

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 covers purpose, safety, and sequencing, but with no output schema, it lacks any mention of return values or error behavior. It also doesn't state what happens if called before scan_document. Given the tool's role in a batch workflow, this is a notable gap, though the input parameter is fully documented in the schema.

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 baseline is 3. The tool description itself does not discuss the 'commands' parameter, but the schema provides detailed semantics for it (e.g., list of ops, examples, geometry notes). No additional parameter meaning is needed from the description.

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 core purpose: 'Dry-run a batch against the cached Document Model' with an explicit parenthetical '(no InDesign writes)'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like execute_batch and scan_document by specifying it is a non-mutating preview operation on a cached model.

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?

Provides explicit usage guidance: 'Call after scan_document' establishes a required precondition, and 'Prefer preview_batch before a large execute_batch' gives a clear recommendation for when to use this tool over its primary alternative. This is specific and actionable.

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