spine_preview_get_config

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explicitly states read-only behavior, which is good. However, it does not disclose whether the tool makes network requests, requires authentication, or has any side effects beyond fetching data. Some behavioral transparency is present but not comprehensive.

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 two concise sentences with no filler. It front-loads the main purpose and adds the read-only note efficiently. Every word contributes value.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description provides a high-level list of return contents (default config, runtime version, URL parameters). This is largely sufficient, though more detail on the return structure would improve completeness.

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 100% with a single optional parameter 'baseUrl' that includes a default description. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 that the tool returns default config, official runtime version, and URL parameter descriptions for the browser preview layer. It explicitly notes read-only behavior ('只读，不写入 JSON'), distinguishing it from sibling tools that modify or create content.

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 description implies usage context through its read-only declaration, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. However, among sibling tools, this is uniquely focused on retrieving preview configuration, so the context is clear enough for an agent to infer appropriate usage.

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