list_previews

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

With no annotations, the description carries full disclosure burden; it does add real value by revealing that only 'active' previews are returned and that results are scoped to the authenticated user, which implies auth is required. However it says nothing about ordering, default page size behavior, whether inactive/expired previews are silently excluded, or what a result entry contains.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the scope qualifiers ('active', 'authenticated user') come early where they matter. It is efficient, though its brevity borders on under-specification for a tool with no annotations.

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 simple two-optional-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description covers what is listed and whose it is, which is close to adequate. Missing are pagination behavior and result shape expectations that the absent annotations and output schema would otherwise supply.

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%, with both limit (default 20) and offset documented in the schema itself, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema – no guidance on sensible page sizes or how offset interacts with the active filter.

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 (list) plus resource (HTML preview projects) and adds meaningful scope: 'active' and 'owned by the authenticated user'. This clearly separates it from siblings like get_preview_diff or create_preview, but it does not explicitly reference any sibling to disambiguate, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Usage is only implied by the verb 'List' – an agent can infer this is the enumeration entry point, but the description never states when to use it versus get_preview_diff or how to page through results. No exclusions or prerequisites (e.g., whether authentication must happen first via the authenticate sibling) are given.

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