preview_push

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations by specifying 'WITHOUT consuming a view', which is a non-obvious behavior not present in the structured fields. However, it doesn't disclose potential rate limits or authorization nuances, which prevents a higher score.

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 a single, tightly written sentence that front-loads the action ('Return') and result ('shareable secret URL') while adding a crucial caveat. Every word adds value, with no redundancy or fluff.

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?

The tool is simple with one parameter and strong annotations. The description effectively communicates the core function and the distinctive 'without consuming a view' behavior. Although there is no output schema, the description hints at the return content (a URL), which is adequate for this tool's complexity.

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 100% for the single parameter (url_token), so the schema fully documents the parameter. The description adds no extra meaning about the parameter beyond saying 'a push', which is already implied by the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the burden.

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 returns a shareable secret URL for a push, using a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('push'). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_active_pushes or expire_push by adding the phrase 'WITHOUT consuming a view', which is a unique preview capability.

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 usage context—previewing a push without consuming a view—but does not explicitly mention when to use this tool over alternatives or exclude other scenarios. It lacks explicit 'when/when-not' guidance that would make it clearer, though some context is provided by the preview intent.

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