preview_document

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the output type (PNG/JPEG image) but says nothing about whether rendering requires an open document, whether it is read-only or writes a file to disk, cost/performance, or how the image is returned to the caller.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler; the object and the purpose are stated immediately. It is not padded, and every clause carries information.

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?

For a 5-parameter tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 20% schema coverage, the description omits too much: return-value shape, resolution semantics, document selection semantics, and any safety/performance context. The single sentence is a good start but far from sufficient.

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 only 20% (just document_id), and the description names only format, page, and the target document loosely. The resolutionPpi parameter (72-600, default 150) and documentIndex are undocumented in both schema and description, so an agent must guess at resolution behavior and how documentIndex interacts with document_id.

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?

It states a specific verb and resource (render a page of the active document as an image) plus the intent (visual inspection of layout, colors, typography). That distinguishes it reasonably well from pagination/metadata siblings, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from export_document or export_batchFolder, which also produce page output.

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 phrase 'so you can visually inspect' implies the use case (checking rendered appearance) but names no conditions, prerequisites, or alternatives. With export_document and export_batchFolder in the sibling set, an agent gets no explicit steer on when to preview versus export.

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