batch_preview

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It only states that the tool generates preview thumbnails, which is a read-like operation, but does not disclose any other behavioral traits such as error handling, performance, or whether any files are modified.

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 moderately sized with a clear first sentence for purpose, a second paragraph for context, and a param list at the end. It is efficient but could be more structured.

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 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers purpose and use cases. However, it lacks information about the output format (e.g., whether previews are returned or saved) and does not explain all parameters in detail.

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. It lists all parameters at the end and explains include_exif, but other parameters like file_paths, profile_path, max_width, and max_images are only listed by name with no additional meaning beyond their names.

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 starts with a clear verb and resource: 'Generate small preview thumbnails for multiple RAW files.' It distinguishes from sibling tools like batch_process and process_raw by emphasizing quick scanning and previews.

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 provides explicit use cases: 'selecting images from a series or verifying batch settings before full-resolution processing.' This gives clear context for when to use the tool, though it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives.

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