preview_spring_from_size

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. 'Preview' communicates that the operation is non-mutating, but nothing is said about what the preview returns, whether it validates the entry, what 'supported' means, or what side effects (if any) it has.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is appropriately short, though the terminology ('supported', 'resolved') is not anchored by any additional structure.

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 4-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, this description is insufficient: it lacks return value details, preconditions, alternatives, parameter semantics, and error behavior. An agent has to guess what 'preview' produces and whether required inputs are the catalog/entry IDs alone.

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 compensate by explaining parameter meanings, but it mentions none of the four parameters. catalog_id, entry_id, overrides, and catalog_dir are left undocumented at the semantic level, and 'one resolved catalog entry' only weakly implies entry_id.

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 uses a clear verb ('Preview') and identifies the resource ('a supported spring from one resolved catalog entry'), so an agent can tell this is a preview operation rather than a creation or resolution one. However, 'supported spring' and 'resolved catalog entry' are unexplained jargon, and it does not explicitly set the tool apart from sibling preview/create tools such as preview_compression_spring or create_spring_from_size.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no exclusions, and no named siblings. The phrase 'from one resolved catalog entry' implies a prerequisite resolution step, but the description leaves the timing and selection criteria to inference.

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