maket_preview

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

With no annotations, the description fully carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It reveals that `open` launches a browser (localhost) and `snapshot` uses headless Chromium, returns a PNG inline, and writes to a file path on disk. This covers side effects like browser launch and file output; however, it doesn't mention default export paths or potential permission requirements, so it's not exhaustive.

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 but information-dense: a single 'When to use' sentence plus a formatted action table. No redundant words, and the structure (overview then two bullets) makes it easy to scan. Every sentence earns its place.

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 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the tool's core functionality well, including output format for `snapshot` and the browser action for `open`. It lacks some details about edge cases, error behavior, or default output paths, but is otherwise sufficient for a preview tool.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by grouping actions and clarifying which parameters apply to each (e.g., 'open — No params' and schema notes that doc/page are required for snapshot). This goes beyond the raw schema descriptions, earning a 4.

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' and then details two distinct operations (`open` and `snapshot`). It uses specific verbs ('launch', 'rasterises') and resources ('live preview URL', 'single page to PNG'), making it easy to distinguish from sibling tools like `maket_pdf` or `maket_image`.

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 opens with 'When to use: view documents outside the agent,' providing a clear usage context. It also distinguishes between the two actions (`open` for browser launch, `snapshot` for PNG rendering), but does not explicitly mention when *not* to use this tool or compare it to sibling alternatives, so it falls short of a 5.

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