preview_lut

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It mentions returning an inline thumbnail and optional merging, but it does not describe error handling, performance, or whether the tool is read-only. Basic transparency is present 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, front-loading the main purpose and then listing parameters inline. Every sentence is necessary, with no fluff.

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 and no annotations, the description covers the main behavior, output type, and optional merge feature. It lacks details on error conditions or prerequisites, but overall it is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's function.

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%, but the description lists all parameters with added context: base_profile is an optional PP3 path, strength is 0-100. This compensates well, making parameters meaningful 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 clearly states it renders an inline preview of a RAW file with a HaldCLUT film simulation applied, differentiating it from siblings like preview_raw (no LUT) and apply_lut (processing vs preview). The verb 'render' and resource 'inline preview' are specific.

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?

It explains when to use the optional base_profile parameter to preserve WB/exposure, providing context. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over siblings like preview_lut_comparison or apply_lut.

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