maket_preview

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility. It explains that 'open' launches a URL and 'snapshot' renders via headless Chromium and returns results. However, it lacks details on side effects (e.g., does 'open' modify any state?), permissions needed, or error conditions. The 'true mm size' detail is good, but overall transparency is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 well-structured. It opens with a purpose statement, then presents each action in a clear list format. Every sentence adds information, and there is no redundancy or filler.

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 4 parameters, two action modes, and no output schema, the description adequately covers the two use cases. It describes inputs for each action and specifies output for 'snapshot' (inline binary and file path). However, it could mention the return behavior for 'open' and elaborate on disk path details.

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 input schema covers all 4 parameters with descriptions, achieving 100% coverage. The description adds value by explicitly linking the 'action' enum values to their usage context and stating which parameters are required for each action. This goes beyond the schema's standalone descriptions.

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 the tool's purpose: 'view documents outside the agent'. It specifies two distinct actions (open and snapshot) with concrete outcomes (launch URL in browser vs render PNG). This differentiates it from sibling tools like maket_doc or maket_pdf which may involve document editing or processing.

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 a clear 'When to use' statement and breaks down each action's parameters and behavior. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or suggest alternatives among sibling tools, which would improve guidance further.

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