inkbolt_document_preview

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond them: the call returns explicit world/pixel matrices and exact document identity, and region/object views crop the full composition rather than re-rendering a subset. It stops short of covering cost, size limits, or the deferred document-schema prerequisite.

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?

Three sentences, all load-bearing, with the core capability front-loaded and the response_format hint placed last where it belongs. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity, though the second and third sentences are dense enough to require re-reading.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-shape explanation is not required. Against a 6-parameter tool with nested options and a deferred document schema (resolved via inkbolt_schema_lookup), the description is adequate on the rendering story but silent on the snapshot/revision input requirement and on how preview differs from render — the two gaps an agent is most likely to hit.

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 67%, so the schema already documents several parameters (response_format, bounds, margin, roots). The description's enumeration of 'canvas, document region, selected objects or standalone artboard' mirrors the `focus` union, and the cropping note adds semantic meaning to region/object focus. It adds little for scale, max_size, render_options, or control.

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 states a specific verb+resource combination — render a canvas, region, selected objects, or artboard as PNG — and enumerates the four view targets, which maps cleanly onto the `focus` union in the schema. However, it never differentiates this tool from the obvious sibling `inkbolt_document_render`; the phrase 'preserving render semantics and limits' hints at a relationship without resolving which tool an agent should pick.

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 only usage instruction is 'Use response_format structured or preview for summary text,' which is a parameter choice, not guidance on when this tool applies versus `inkbolt_document_render` or `inkbolt_document_inspect`. There is no statement of prerequisites, exclusions, or the conditions under which a preview is the right call.

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