Preview SVG

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

The description discloses that the output is a PNG base64, background is transparent, animations are static snapshots, and width can be omitted or specified. It does not contradict any annotations (none provided). However, it does not explain the 'format' parameter's effect (e.g., when to use 'html') though schema covers it.

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 well-structured with sections (When to use, Input, Behavior, Width), front-loaded with purpose, and every sentence adds value without unnecessary text.

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 4 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers key behaviors and usage contexts. It does not explicitly state mutual exclusivity of artifact and content, but the 'pass EITHER' guidance implies it.

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 coverage is 100% so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by explaining that 'artifact' is preferred over 'content', width can be left to default, and content is only needed when no artifact id exists.

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 states clearly 'Render SVG content to a PNG image so the AI can visually inspect the output.' It distinguishes from sibling tool render_svg by noting that render_svg already returns a preview and this tool is for re-previewing or previewing external SVG.

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 'When to use' section explicitly tells when to use this tool vs render_svg, including re-previewing artifacts or previewing SVG from other sources. It also advises to stop iterating when visual result matches intent.

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