preview_cheese

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing side effects. The verb 'Get' strongly implies a read-only operation, but the description does not explicitly state that it makes no changes or require permissions, leaving some ambiguity.

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 one concise, well-structured sentence with no unnecessary words or redundant information. It front-loads the action and output, making it easy to parse.

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 states the high-level return values (playable manifest and resolved ingredient URLs) and important constraints (draft or published, owned by the agent). Given the simple single-parameter input and no output schema, this is reasonably complete, though it omits details about response structure or 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?

The input schema has a single required cheeseId with no description, and the tool description provides 0% schema coverage. The description refers to 'a cheese' but does not explain what cheeseId is, its format, or how to obtain it, so the parameter semantics are under-specified.

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?

Description clearly states the action ('Get'), the resource ('cheese'), and the specific outputs ('playable manifest and resolved ingredient URLs'), with scope ('draft or published') and ownership ('owned by the agent'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_cheese or publish_cheese.

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 context by specifying that the tool applies to both draft and published cheeses owned by the agent, which narrows when it should be used. It does not explicitly name alternatives or contrast with sibling tools, but the preview-focused wording implies the intended use case.

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