trace_preview_variant

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

With no annotations, the description's 'Read' implies a non-mutating operation, but it does not disclose other behavioral details like scope, error conditions, or whether the trace is post-transform. The output schema may cover return values, but the description alone is minimal.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It efficiently conveys the core purpose without wasted 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?

The tool has three required parameters with no schema descriptions and no annotations, yet the description only establishes the purpose. It lacks essential context about parameter semantics and usage, making it insufficient for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

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 hints at a 'rendered preview variant.' It does not define run_id, image_index, or variant_index, or explain how they combine to identify the trace.

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 'Read' and a specific resource 'applied-transform trace for one rendered preview variant,' clearly distinguishing it from siblings like render_preview or get_preview_manifest. It explains exactly what the tool accesses.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention use cases, prerequisites, or exclude any sibling tools such as get_preview_manifest or compare_preview_runs.

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