lathe_preview

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden. It goes beyond basic expectations by revealing that the tool opens a persistent live browser window and that the window refreshes on subsequent lathe_shape calls. This gives the agent useful behavioral context without contradicting any annotation (none provided).

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 exactly two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. Every phrase earns its place, with no filler or repetition of the tool name.

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?

For a relatively simple preview tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, inputs, and behavioral nuance (refresh behavior). The inclusion of sibling tool context via the template source is sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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%, but the description adds relational meaning: the 'template' parameter is explicitly tied to lathe_templates, and 'data' is described as 'the shape your template expects'. This enriches understanding beyond the schema's bare descriptions.

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 action ('Open a live browser window showing a rendered resume') with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly mentioning 'live browser window' and how subsequent lathe_shape calls refresh it, which sets it apart from lathe_templates or lathe_finish.

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 tells the user what to pass ('structured resume data' and 'template name from lathe_templates'), and explains the interaction with lathe_shape for refresh behavior. This provides clear context for when to use it, though it does not explicitly state when not to use alternatives.

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