memory_preview

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

There are no annotations, so the description itself must disclose core behavior. It does communicate offline, no-upload, and user-visible verification behavior, which is meaningful and suggests a read-only, side-effect-free operation. However it doesn't state what exactly is returned (file content? rendered preview?), how errors like missing files are handled, or whether there any side effects beyond displaying results. It's useful but incomplete.

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?

Two short sentences, no filler, and the primary operation is front-loaded. The

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 no output schema, no annotations, and no nested structure, the description needs to explain observable behavior and expected return. It says the file preview result is set by the user for verification, but it does not explain the output shape, how the files are referenced, whether the preview renders the file content, or what errors (files not found, invalid name) look like. The agent is left without enough context to use the tool confidently in a workflow.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must carry the parameter-term semantics. 'files' is faintly described as

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 a specific action (

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 implies a verification-before-something workflow: preview files to let the user check before a more permanent action like publishing or uploading. But it never says explicitly when to use this instead of memory_publish, memory_retract, or memory_recall, nor does it exclude cases. It's clear context but no defined when-not-to or alternative guidance, which is just enough.

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