previewSopFile

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It reveals the internal API call to /attachment/getMapById and explains URL construction. Although it doesn't mention safety (read-only) or auth, the description offers sufficient transparency for a preview tool.

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 extremely concise with just two sentences. It front-loads the purpose and proceeds with usage instructions. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant information.

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 single parameter with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description provides complete context: it explains the prerequisite step, the internal call, and the result (a frontend-accessible URL). For a simple preview tool, nothing essential 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 100% and the schema already describes the id parameter. However, the description adds meaning beyond schema by tying the id to a specific source (queryAbnormalDrawingList results) and explaining its role, which helps the agent use the parameter correctly.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: to preview abnormal marked points in SOP files. It uses a specific verb ('preview') and resource ('SOP file abnormal marking points'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools by explicitly mentioning a prerequisite call to queryAbnormalDrawingList.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool: after calling queryAbnormalDrawingList and after user selects a record id. It provides clear context but does not mention when not to use it or list alternatives, which is acceptable given the straightforward workflow.

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