list_connected_project_previews

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral guidance beyond annotations by warning that hasPreview alone is insufficient and that deploymentStatus must be used to distinguish build states. This helps the agent interpret results correctly.

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?

Two sentences deliver the core purpose, the return fields, and a critical interpretation caveat. Every sentence earns its place, and the most important usage warning is placed at the end for emphasis without bloating the definition.

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 simple one-parameter read-only list operation with an output schema and read-only annotations, the description is complete. It covers what is returned, how to interpret statuses, and the correct scope of the operation. No additional context is needed for correct invocation.

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%, with the only parameter 'id' documented as 'Connected project ID'. The description reinforces that the tool operates on a connected project but adds no new parameter-level meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the full burden.

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 names a specific verb ('List'), a specific resource ('tracked branch previews for a connected project'), and enumerates the key fields returned (preview deployment ID, raw deployment status, preview URL, dashboard status URL). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like list_connected_projects and get_connected_project.

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 clearly conveys when to use this tool: to list every tracked branch preview for a connected project. It also provides usage guidance on interpreting deploymentStatus versus hasPreview. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it over nearby list/get tools.

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