Inline preview (snapshot)

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

Annotations already mark this as read-only and non-destructive, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context: 'one-shot', 'base64 thumbnail', 'BFS up parent_depth hops', 'intentionally tiny + lossy', and the inclusion of cook stats. It goes well beyond what annotations provide, and it does not contradict them.

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 compact yet information-dense. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose and output components; the second sentence gives usage guidance and a caveat. Every clause earns its place, and it is well-structured for quick comprehension.

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 the tool's moderate complexity (8 params, output schema present, annotations present), the description is remarkably complete. It covers what the tool does, what it returns, when to use it, when not to use it, and the intentionally lossy nature of the preview. There is no significant missing behavioral context.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra semantics by explaining the BFS error sweep in relation to parent_depth, the 'top-N changed-from-default' for max_changed_params, and that include_full_params mirrors get_td_node_parameters. It doesn't add detail for every parameter, but it enriches the most context-dependent ones.

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 uses a specific verb ('inspection') with a clear resource ('TOP') and enumerates exactly what the tool returns: thumbnail, error sweep, changed parameters, and cook stats. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings like get_preview, get_td_node_errors, and get_td_node_parameters by framing it as a single composite call.

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 gives an explicit when-to-use ('when you just want to know is this op alive and healthy?') and when-not-to-use guidance ('Use get_preview/render_output for delivery-grade frames'). It also names the alternative tools, making the decision clear.

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