preview_architecture

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It clearly states the key behavioral trait: returns inline SVG without writing a file. This is sufficient for understanding, though additional details like error handling or prerequisites could enhance transparency.

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 a single, well-front-loaded sentence that conveys the essential action and usage condition without any wasted words.

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?

While the description covers the core purpose and usage, it omits crucial context such as the need to provide either 'dsl' or 'spec' (both optional in schema but at least one required) and the output format. Given the tool's complexity with 9 parameters and nested objects, more context is needed.

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 only 44%, and the description does not add any parameter explanations beyond what the schema provides. It fails to compensate for the low coverage, leaving the agent without guidance on using the two input alternatives (dsl vs spec) or other parameters.

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 returns SVG markup inline rather than writing a file, which distinguishes it from siblings like render_architecture. The verb 'Return' and resource 'SVG markup' are specific and unambiguous.

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?

Explicitly advises use when the client can display or post-process SVG directly, providing a clear usage condition. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or when not to use the tool.

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