whodb_platform_file_preview

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld and idempotent, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond them: text content is capped in MCP output, tabular previews are returned as the hosted platform provides them, and passing workspace affects only this call without changing defaults.

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?

Front-loaded purpose followed by tightly packed, actionable guidance. Each sentence carries weight, though the field-name examples are dense enough to read as a run-on rather than scannable structure.

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?

With no output schema, the description partially compensates by explaining return shapes (capped text content, platform-provided tabular previews). Combined with annotations and a fully documented schema, an agent has enough to call the tool correctly, though return-format specifics remain somewhat abstract.

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 the baseline is 3. The description goes further by naming concrete field values ('mimeType', 'sizeBytes', 'isTabular', 'textContent', 'tabular') and clarifying the semantics of the nested workspace object as per-call targeting that leaves defaults untouched.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Preview one hosted project file'), and 'one' distinguishes it from list-oriented siblings such as whodb_platform_files. It does not, however, differentiate itself from closely related readers like whodb_platform_file_inspect or whodb_platform_tabular_files, so the agent must infer the boundary.

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?

It gives within-tool sequencing guidance (prefer metadata fields first, request body/row fields only when needed), which is genuinely useful. But it never states when to reach for this tool over file_inspect, file_search, or tabular_files, leaving the sibling choice to inference.

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