lc_preview_service_request

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It says 'Preview', implying a read-only operation, but does not confirm that no changes are made, nor does it describe what happens during preview (e.g., validation, simulation). The term 'non-impersonated' hints at using the current user's identity but lacks clarity. The description omits critical behavioral details such as side effects or return value.

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 a single sentence, which is concise and front-loaded. However, it is too minimal—it does not earn its place by providing sufficient information. While not verbose, it sacrifices clarity for brevity.

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?

Given the complexity of the tool (5 parameters, nested object, many sibling preview tools, no output schema), the description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain what a 'service request' entails, how to use 'request_data', or what the preview result contains. The tool cannot be correctly invoked based solely on this description.

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 adds no context about any of the 5 parameters, including the required 'request_data' (object with additionalProperties) and 'service_name'. Without parameter explanations, an agent cannot correctly populate fields. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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 'Preview a generic non-impersonated service request' clearly identifies the verb (Preview) and resource (service request), and specifies 'generic' and 'non-impersonated' to narrow the scope. However, it does not distinguish this tool from the many other lc_preview_* tools, such as lc_preview_add_case_artifact or lc_preview_create_case, which are more specific. The purpose is clear but lacks sibling differentiation.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or context. For example, it does not state that this tool should be used for service requests not covered by other preview tools, nor does it explain what 'non-impersonated' means in practice.

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