pocketdraft_preview

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful non-annotation context by stating the return type ('an MCP image and dimensions') and the fact that scaling and bounds overlay are controlled by the caller. It does not mention whether rendering is expensive, cached, or subject to a size limit.

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?

One tightly packed sentence with no filler; the core action leads. The optional clauses stack awkwardly ('optionally a region in logical pixels at a chosen scale and geometric bounds overlay'), which slightly obscures which parts are independent options.

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 spelled out, and the description still summarizes them. However, for a six-parameter tool with a nested region object and zero schema coverage, an agent still lacks guidance on canvasId vs projectId, on the revision hash, and on when to prefer this over pocketdraft_export.

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%, so the description must carry the parameter burden. It does explain scale, region ('logical pixels') and showBounds ('geometric bounds overlay'), but says nothing about canvasId, revision, or projectId, leaving half of the six parameters undocumented anywhere. Partial compensation, hence a middle score.

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?

States a specific verb (Render) and resource (the paired canvas) and notes the optional narrowing to a region with scale and bounds overlay. It is clear what the tool produces, though it never names a sibling (e.g. pocketdraft_export) to disambiguate the rendering-vs-export boundary.

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 statement of when to call this rather than pocketdraft_export, pocketdraft_inspect_project, or pocketdraft_get_catalog, nor any precondition (does the project need to be validated first? does a revision need to exist?). The word 'optionally' signals degrees of usage but gives no criteria for choosing them.

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