preview_schematic

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

Annotations mark readOnlyHint=false, and the description earns that by disclosing the actual side effects: the PNG is saved locally, native GUI screenshots are not produced, Paintings annotations are omitted with a warning, colliding labels are nudged and reported in adjusted_labels, and mismatched-provenance data is flagged in the image. It also states the exact return shape (native MCP image content, spectrum_markers rounded to two decimals), which goes well beyond the annotations.

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 main output is front-loaded in the first sentence and the remaining detail is ordered by importance: rendering behavior, then label handling, then spectrum specifics. The spectrum sentence is dense and packs several clauses, but no sentence is pure filler.

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?

There is no output schema, yet the description covers return values thoroughly (image content, adjusted_labels, spectrum_markers, per-node panels). With only two parameters and no output schema, the main remaining gap is the meaning of the required path parameter, which is left entirely to inference.

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 schema gives only bare titles 'Path' and 'Dataset Path'. The description indirectly explains dataset_path (it drives the optional spectrum) but says nothing about what path refers to (schematic file? project?) or what format it expects.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Return a PNG image of the saved circuit layout and optionally its discrete HB spectrum.' That is enough to separate it from inspection/read siblings, but it never explicitly contrasts itself with inspect_schematic or read_schematic, which also deal with schematics.

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?

Usage is only implied: the phrase 'optionally its discrete HB spectrum' hints that supplying the second argument opts into spectrum rendering, but there is no explicit 'use this when' or a named alternative for plain textual inspection. The agent must infer the choice from the sibling list.

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