preview_check

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose real behavioral substance: the precise validation rules (dimensions, fps, codec, duration, size, audio via ffprobe), self-review status, and deterministic rendering. It still omits pass/fail semantics, whether it mutates state, and what a failure looks like. Reasonable disclosure of what is checked, but incomplete on operational behavior.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded, but the description is one dense run-on sentence packing seven+ technical constraints into a single colon-list. It is information-dense but hard to parse, and some of the specification detail arguably belongs in structured fields rather than prose.

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 explained, and the description thoroughly covers what is validated. What remains missing for a 1-param check tool is any explanation of the input and of the operating context in which it should be invoked.

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 single parameter app_dir has 0% schema description coverage, and the description never explains it. Given low coverage, the description is expected to compensate, and it does not — the agent cannot learn what app_dir should point to from either source.

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 states a specific action (checking offline readiness) on a specific resource (the App Preview set) and enumerates the exact conditions checked. An agent can tell it validates preview videos, distinguishing it informally from preview_brief, preview_review_*, and preview_upload. However, it never explicitly contrasts itself with those siblings, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternatives named. The only hint of usage context is the word 'Offline' and 'readiness', which the agent must infer. Nothing tells the agent when to run this check versus preview_review_log or preview_brief.

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