preview_spw_generation

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

The description reveals that engineering fields require explicit opt-in and specifies allowed values for column_preset, which goes beyond the schema. However, it does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, what side effects exist, or any safety profile. With no annotations, the description carries the burden but only partially covers behavioral traits.

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 compact, with a clear opening sentence stating purpose, followed by a focused paragraph on parameter details. No unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the primary action and then provides essential mapping information.

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?

With 5 parameters, no annotations, and 0% schema coverage, the description is the sole source of information. It explains some parameters but omits document_id and include_root, does not describe the return value, and gives no usage context relative to siblings. An agent would need to infer too much to call 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It details the structure of 'columns' (field, column_type, block_number, column_number, skip_unit_value) and the valid values for 'column_preset'. It implies 'include_engineering' via the opt-in note but leaves 'document_id' and 'include_root' unexplained. Partial compensation for the missing schema 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 it builds a preview for a separate .spw specification document from the assembly tree, which is a specific verb-resource pair. It distinguishes the tool by using 'separate .spw', hinting at a distinct use case from other specification preview tools, though it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the many similar preview tools (e.g., preview_specification_generation). The term 'separate .spw' implies a scenario but does not state conditions or exclusions. There is no mention of alternatives or when this tool is preferred.

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