view_preview

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only says 'Look at one preview PNG' without explaining side effects, permissions, blocking behavior, or what the tool actually does (e.g., open viewer, return data). This is minimal transparency for a read-like operation.

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 short and front-loaded with the action. The args block is separate but minimal. It could be marginally more structured (e.g., bullet points), but overall it is efficient and free of waste.

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?

Without an output schema, the description should explain what the tool returns or how it behaves (e.g., displays image, returns base64). It only describes the input, leaving a gap in completeness for a tool that has no other documentation.

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 input schema has zero description coverage, but the description adds the crucial detail that the path is 'relative to output or absolute,' clarifying the required parameter format. This goes beyond the schema and is helpful for correct usage.

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 looks at a preview PNG from specific sources (preview_views or a render). This distinguishes it from siblings like view_image (general images) and view_reference (reference images), making the purpose specific and unambiguous.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., view_image, render_and_view). There are no explicit usage conditions, exclusions, or prerequisites, leaving the agent without context for tool selection.

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