dossier_preview

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, indicating a safe, non-destructive operation. The description adds that it returns an HTML preview URL, which is a key behavioral detail. There is no contradiction, and the description complements the annotations well.

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 two sentences long, front-loading the main purpose ('Returns an HTML preview URL of a dossier before certification'), and then specifying required inputs. Every sentence is necessary and concise with no wasted words.

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 is simple, with only two parameters and no output schema or nested objects. The description covers the main behavior but lacks details about the return format (e.g., is it a full URL? How to use it?). Given the absence of an output schema, more specificity about the preview URL would improve completeness.

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%, meaning the description must explain the parameters. However, it only lists 'caseFileId and dossierId' as required, without providing any meaning, format, or role. This adds little value beyond the schema's property names. For a tool with only two parameters, more explanation is expected.

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 explicitly states what the tool does: returns an HTML preview URL of a dossier. It includes the specific precondition 'before certification,' which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like dossier_get (which returns dossier data) or dossier_document_url (likely for document URLs). The verb 'Returns' and resource 'HTML preview URL' are specific and unambiguous.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: 'before certification.' It also lists the required parameters. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or provide alternatives among siblings. Still, the usage context is well indicated.

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