preview_collection

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does communicate a meaningful trait: returned data is capped to a few rows. However, it does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, whether there are side effects, or how the cap is determined beyond a vague 'few.'

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 refreshingly short and avoids filler, with the cap behavior and the 'only tool' distinction both carrying meaning. However, the first sentence is a fragment and the overall message is cryptic rather than clearly structured, so it reads more like a teaser than a polished tool description.

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 that the tool has a required 'handle' parameter, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what 'handle' refers to, what the returned rows contain, or how the cap interacts with the 'rows' parameter. An agent could invoke it, but would have to guess essential invocation details.

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 0%, and the description only loosely references 'rows' with 'A few rows, capped.' The required 'handle' parameter is completely unexplained, leaving the agent to guess what identifier is needed. The description does not compensate for the total lack of schema parameter documentation.

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 hints that the tool returns a capped set of rows and claims to be the only tool that returns data on purpose, which signals a preview-like function. However, it never explicitly states the verb and resource (e.g., 'preview a collection') and the core purpose must be inferred from the tool name and the terse phrase.

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 says 'This is the only tool that returns data, on purpose,' giving the agent a clear selection criterion among sibling tools. It does not name alternatives or elaborate on when not to use it, but the 'only tool' statement is a strong, clear usage signal.

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