preview_directory

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It mentions the output is 'RICH output ~3-5k tokens', indicating potential heaviness, but does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only and non-destructive. This is a minor gap as it is a preview tool, but more clarity on side effects would improve transparency.

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 a single sentence that efficiently conveys purpose and usage guidance without fluff. However, it could be slightly more structured with clear sections for parameters or usage notes.

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 has 5 parameters, no schema descriptions, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It adequately covers purpose and usage but fails to address parameter details and return values, leaving the agent underinformed.

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%, and the description does not explain any of the 5 parameters (depth, directory, max_files, max_entries, respect_gitignore). The agent has no guidance on how to use these parameters, which is a critical omission.

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 specifies the tool's purpose: deep architecture analysis including entry points, hot functions, call graph, and git activity. It explicitly states it is for first-time orientation of an unknown codebase, distinguishing it from sibling tools like search_structures and scan_directory.

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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance: for first-time orientation of an unknown codebase. It also tells when not to use (for targeted questions) and suggests cheaper alternatives (search_structures, scan_directory).

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