preview_before_after

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the dual render and inline return of images, but does not mention side effects, permissions, or data limitations. Adequate but not comprehensive.

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 concise with three short sentences front-loading purpose, explaining process, and listing parameters. No redundant 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?

For a tool with 3 params and no output schema or annotations, the description is mostly complete. It explains the dual render and output format (inline images). Missing details like error handling or proof of read-only nature, but sufficient for basic understanding.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It lists the three parameter names but provides no additional meaning or explanation beyond what the names imply. For example, it does not specify file_path as path to RAW file or what max_width controls.

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 the tool generates before/after preview images to compare processing effects, specifying the action and resource. It explains the dual render of a RAW file with default and specified settings, distinguishing it from siblings like preview_raw or compare_profiles.

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 when to use (to compare processing effects) but does not explicitly state when not to use or differentiate from alternatives like compare_profiles or preview_lut_comparison. It provides clear context but lacks exclusions.

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