Render a preview (PDF or PNG)

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns base64 and distinguishes between full-fidelity PDF and PNG thumbnails. However, it does not mention side effects, permissions, error conditions, or behavior for unsupported file types, leaving gaps for an agent.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The first sentence immediately states the action (produce a preview) and key options. Every word serves a purpose. Front-loaded with the verb and resource.

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?

Given no output schema, the description includes the return type (base64) and its purpose (powers preview). For a simple transformation tool, this is adequate. Minor gaps: no mention of error behavior or size constraints, but overall complete for its 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 coverage is 100% with parameter descriptions. The description adds value by explaining 'full-fidelity PDF' and 'single-page PNG thumbnail', and by contextualizing that the preview powers a board viewer. This goes beyond the schema's dry 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 title and description clearly state the tool produces a preview (PDF or PNG) for the in-browser viewer. It specifies the two kinds and their defaults. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like render_document, though the focus on preview vs rendering is implicit.

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 for generating previews in a board viewer ('Powers the board's document preview'), but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives like apply_edits or render_document. No exclusion criteria or prerequisites are mentioned.

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