present_preview

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

No annotations exist. Description discloses that the URL is served on loopback by this MCP process, implying a local network call. However, it does not discuss authentication, rate limits, or side effects beyond returning a URL.

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 brief and front-loaded with the core purpose. Two sentences convey the essential information without unnecessary words.

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?

While the description states the function and timing, it lacks details on return value structure, error cases, and the meaning of 'Surface'. For a tool with no output schema and no annotations, more context would be beneficial for correct usage.

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%. Description only implies canvasId is needed for identification but does not explain the 'title' or 'summary' parameters. These optional parameters remain undocumented, so the description adds minimal value over the schema.

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 returns a Surface (embedUrl) for showing a canvas in an iframe, and specifies when to call it. It distinguishes from siblings by mentioning 'proj-airi' and loopback, which is specific to this tool.

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?

Provides clear context ('after drawing or when the user should see the board'), but does not mention when not to use it or alternatives like 'proj_airi_present_surface'.

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