preview_cards

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the key traits: this is a non-destructive preview that produces images rather than triggering hardware. It does not mention whether a specified printer changes the rendered output, nor any permissions or rate constraints.

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?

Purpose and return type are front-loaded in the first two sentences, and the follow-on material is functional documentation of the markdown subset, not filler. It is dense but each clause serves the required-parameter gap left by a 0%-coverage schema.

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 two-parameter preview tool with no output schema or annotations, the description covers the essential behavior (renders, does not print, returns images) and the input format in detail. The remaining gap is the unexplained 'printer' parameter and its effect on the preview.

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%, so the description must compensate. It thoroughly documents the required markdown parameter's syntax (headings, bullets, todos, blockquotes, '---' behavior) and the paper's 48mm/~25-character line limit, but never explains the optional 'printer' parameter or how it affects rendering.

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?

States a specific verb (render) and resource (cards) with an explicit scope qualifier: 'exactly as they would print, without printing.' This directly distinguishes it from the sibling print_cards, and 'Returns images' pins down the output medium.

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?

'Without printing' clearly signals the preview-before-print use case, which is enough to route an agent away from print_cards. However, no sibling is named explicitly and no when-not condition (e.g. don't use for final output) is stated.

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