get_workbook_thumbnail

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden and discloses meaningful behaviors: auto-resolution of the view name, automatic stripping of trailing numeric suffixes from workbookUrl, and support for two URL formats. This is substantive and helps the agent anticipate tool behavior.

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?

Five sentences, all informative, with the primary purpose stated upfront. There is no fluff or repetition; every sentence contributes value.

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 description is quite complete for a low-complexity tool with no output schema: it explains inputs and core logic. The only minor gap is that it does not explicitly state whether the return value is a single URL string or a structured object.

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?

The description compensates for the 0% schema coverage by covering all four parameters: workbookUrl as required repository URL, viewName as optional/auto-resolved, workbookName as derivable from the URL, and useStaticPath as the format selector. The mapping is clear but not itemized.

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 clearly states it generates thumbnail URLs for a Tableau Public visualization, which is a specific verb and resource. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_workbook_image, so it falls one step short of full distinction.

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?

Provides clear usage context: recommends relying on auto-resolved view names because they often differ from workbook names, and explains how workbookName is derived when omitted. However, it never names alternative tools or states when not to use this tool.

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