Profile preview image

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, non-open-world, so safety needs no restating. The description adds valuable behavior beyond that: the output is a PNG image plus per-profile name, usage and nominal size metadata. It doesn't mention limits such as the max of 8 profiles or how multiple profiles are returned, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Two dense sentences, front-loaded with the core action and output, followed by the lookup guidance. The parenthetical list of example profile-using elements is slightly extraneous but brief, so it remains efficient overall.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries some burden and does describe the return (PNG plus name/usage/nominal size). Combined with 100% schema coverage on inputs and rich annotations, this is largely complete, with only minor gaps around multi-profile return behavior and error cases.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds genuine meaning by stressing that profiles are matched by exact localized name or GUID and pointing to the lookup tools, which disambiguates the flexible name/index/GUID input forms better than the schema alone. Width/height/background are left to the schema.

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 (renders preview images in PNG) and resource (Profile attributes), and clarifies what a Profile is (complex cross-sections used by walls, beams, columns, handrails). It also names the accompanying metadata returned (name, usage, nominal size). An agent can distinguish this from sibling tools like create_profiles or modify_attributes without opening a schema.

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 gives clear usage context — use it to see a profile's cross-section shape — and routes the agent to the right discovery tools (get_attributes with type:'Profile', get_attribute_folders with attributeType:'Profile'). It does not state any explicit 'when not to use this' condition or an alternative preview tool, so it falls short of the top bar.

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