context_preview

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

Annotations already signal read-only and non-destructive behavior. The description adds the nuance that the read is scoped by skill references and selector scope, and that settings are interpreted via context_describe's settingsSchema. This is useful but cryptic and does not cover further behavioral aspects like response shape or prerequisites.

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 definition is short, but brevity replaces clarity. It is dense and jargon-heavy, with the internal schema reference front-loaded and the actual purpose absent. It is under-specified rather than appropriately concise.

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?

Even though annotations and an output schema reduce some burden, the description fails to establish the tool's purpose, selection criteria, or enough parameter semantics for a 4-parameter call. An agent would have to guess what context_preview returns and how settings/scope/baseline interact.

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 alludes to 'settings' and possibly 'plugin'/'scope' via 'skill refs' and 'selector scope', but it never explains baseline or the required plugin/settings values, formats, or defaults. This is insufficient for relilable invocation.

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 never clearly states what the tool does; it mentions 'settings' and 'reading' but has no explicit action like 'preview' or 'render'. It also does not distinguish context_preview from siblings like context_describe, context_apply, or context_preview_remove.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The only reference to context_describe is as a schema source, not as a competing or complementing tool. An agent cannot determine when context_preview should be selected.

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