preview_lut_comparison

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully bears the burden of disclosure. It explains sequential rendering, return of all thumbnails, labeling, and typical render time (2-5s per LUT). It does not discuss destructive effects, but as a preview tool, this is acceptable. No contradiction with annotations.

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 4 sentences plus a param list. The first sentence captures the purpose, the second explains behavior, the third provides performance expectations. The param list adds context but is somewhat redundant with the schema. Overall, it is well-structured and efficient.

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, behavior, and param hints. Missing details: what 'base_profile' is, units for 'max_width', and exactly what the output (thumbnails) looks like. Adequate for a preview tool but with minor gaps.

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 provides a list of parameters with brief explanations: 'lut_names (list of 2-5 LUT relative paths)', 'strength (0-100)', 'max_width (per image)'. This adds meaning but does not explain 'file_path' or 'base_profile' in detail, leaving gaps.

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 'Render side-by-side inline previews for 2-5 HaldCLUT LUTs for quick comparison', which is a specific verb+resource combination. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'preview_lut' (single LUT) and 'compare_profiles' (profile comparison).

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 tool's purpose is clear for quick LUT comparison, but no explicit guidance is given on when to use versus alternatives like 'preview_lut' for a single LUT or 'batch_preview' for batch processing. The context is implied but not formally structured.

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