interactive_viewer_preview

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the image is returned 'directly to the MCP client,' which hints at inline delivery, but it does not disclose side effects, whether a fresh capture occurs, whether the viewer must be active, or what happens if no image is available.

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 concise sentence with no filler and gets the core action across immediately. It is slightly under-specified, but it is not bloated or repetitive.

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?

With two parameters, no annotations, and 0% schema coverage, the description leaves important context undefined: what capture means, when this should be used, and what state the viewer must be in. The output schema helps with return shape, but it does not compensate for missing parameter and usage context.

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 for undocumented parameters. It does not explain viewer_id or the capture boolean at all; 'capture' is especially ambiguous and is central to behavior. The tool description adds no meaning beyond the raw schema field names.

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 names a specific verb ('Return'), a resource ('visible standalone viewer image'), and a destination ('to the MCP client'), so an agent can tell this is about retrieving the current viewer image rather than configuring or stopping the viewer. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from capture_interactive_viewer_snapshot, which is a close sibling, so it loses the top score.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like capture_interactive_viewer_snapshot or render_preview. The description gives no prerequisites (e.g., whether the standalone viewer must be running), no exclusions, and no mention of when 'preview' is appropriate.

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