get_export_preview

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explicitly says 'Read-only', describes the returned options with defaults, and gives the return shape including error format. This is strong behavioral disclosure for a read-only preview tool. It could add what happens if both album_id and asset_ids are supplied, but the 'Pass exactly one' instruction covers the main contract.

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 organized into clear sections: purpose, usage guidance, args, and return format. Each sentence adds value; the options-explanation is directly actionable and the parameter list is compact. Length is appropriate for the tool's complexity without redundancy.

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 an output schema, but the description still covers the practical decision flow, parameter semantics, return values, and error case. It even explains how to use the returned options to decide between preview-guided asking and direct export. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 0%, and the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter: album_id as Album UUID, asset_ids as explicit asset UUIDs, and limit as max assets with range and default. It also adds the critical exclusivity rule that the schema alone does not convey. Every parameter is given meaningful context beyond its title.

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 names a specific verb ('List'), a specific resource ('what export_pdf would include'), and the included fields (id, type, filename, date, place, people, video duration). It clearly positions this as a preview tool and distinguishes it from its sibling export_pdf. The read-only note and the exclusivity requirement further sharpen the purpose.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance: call it before looking at images and writing captions to know which assets exist. It also explains what to do with the returned options: when the user gave no PDF preferences, show the choices and ask; when they gave specs or want defaults, export directly. This effectively routes the agent between this tool and export_pdf.

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