components_v2_preview

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond the annotations by revealing that the output is an ASCII string representing the layout and that the tool does not send anything. This complements the declared readOnlyHint and idempotentHint. It could go further by mentioning any limitations, but it is sufficient for a safe, read-only preview operation.

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 exceptionally concise with two sentences: one for purpose and usage, one for the return value. It is front-loaded with 'Purpose' and includes all essential information without unnecessary words.

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's simplicity (one parameter, read-only, idempotent), the description is complete. It explains the purpose, the offline workflow, the return format ({ascii}), and the output schema exists. No additional context is needed for an agent to decide when and how to invoke 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% for the single 'components' parameter, whose description 'Components array to render' is clear. The tool description does not add additional parameter-level detail beyond restating that it renders a layout, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Render a Components V2 layout as ASCII') and clearly distinguishes from siblings by stating it is for sanity-checking structure without sending. It also pairs with components_v2_validate, which reinforces its unique role among the components_v2 tools.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: 'so the agent can sanity-check structure without sending' and 'for offline iteration'. It also names a complementary tool (components_v2_validate), providing clear context for when this preview is appropriate vs. sending or editing.

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