preview_render

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that the output is a bounded PNG and that a gimp-preview resource URI is returned, but it never states whether rendering alters the document, whether it costs memory/time, or that it is a safe read-only operation — a meaningful gap for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and output, with no filler. The second sentence partially duplicates the output schema, but it is brief enough not to be wasteful.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be spelled out, and the description is adequate for a simple preview tool. However, with no annotations and 0% parameter documentation, the agent is left uninformed about session requirements, size limits semantics, and side effects.

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%, so the description must compensate and does not. 'Bounded' hints at max_width/max_height but gives no units, defaults, or behavior when omitted, and session_id — the only required parameter — is never explained or linked to session_create/session_open.

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 output ('Render a bounded PNG preview of the current artwork') with a clear downstream intent ('for vision review'), which separates it from mutation siblings like layer_create or export_image. It stops short of naming any sibling explicitly, so an agent must infer that export_image is the write-to-disk alternative.

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 phrase 'for vision review' implies a usage context (inspect artwork visually before deciding), but there is no explicit when-not guidance and no mention of the closest alternative, export_image, or of any prerequisite like an open session. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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