preview_with_adjustments

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

Describes rendering a JPEG using RT CLI with full profile including Locallab spots, and optional histogram. This gives good insight into the tool's behavior. However, it does not explicitly state non-destructive nature, but 'preview' implies that.

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 well-structured: purpose, mechanism, usage note, and parameter list. It is concise and front-loaded. The parameter list at the end is slightly redundant but acceptable given schema coverage.

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?

Covers purpose, mechanism, and usage advice, but lacks detail on the output (e.g., return format like file path or data stream). With no output schema, this omission leaves ambiguity about what the tool produces.

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?

The description lists all four parameter names (file_path, profile_path, max_width, include_histogram), which is helpful given 0% schema coverage. However, it does not elaborate on their meanings or constraints, e.g., max_width units or file path formats.

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 'Preview a RAW file with all active local adjustments applied', providing a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'preview_raw' by emphasizing adjustments.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use this after add_luminance_adjustment or apply_local_preset to verify the effect visually'. This provides clear when-to-use guidance and implies a workflow, differentiating from other preview tools.

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