preview_sections

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the tool doesn't generate a file, which is useful behavioral context. However, it doesn't disclose other important traits like whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions are needed, what the output format looks like (text content preview), or any rate limits. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in behavioral understanding.

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 perfectly concise and well-structured: two sentences that each earn their place. The first sentence states the core purpose with key constraint, and the second provides usage guidance. No wasted words, and the most important information (what it does) is front-loaded.

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 the tool has no annotations, no output schema, and a single but complex parameter (nested object 'spec'), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the purpose and basic usage context but lacks details about output format, error conditions, or what 'preview' actually returns. For a tool that presumably returns text content previews, more information about the return value would be helpful.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage (the 'spec' parameter is documented as 'Document specification'), so the baseline is 3. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides—it doesn't explain what constitutes a valid 'document specification' or provide examples. The description's value is in tool purpose, not parameter semantics.

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 purpose: 'Preview the text content of a document spec without generating a file.' This specifies the verb ('preview'), resource ('text content of a document spec'), and key constraint ('without generating a file'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_template_schema' beyond mentioning 'generate_comparison_doc' in usage context.

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 provides clear usage context: 'Useful for verifying the structure before calling generate_comparison_doc.' This explicitly states when to use this tool (for verification before generation) and references an alternative sibling tool. However, it doesn't mention when NOT to use it or address other siblings like 'get_template_schema'.

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