spine_preview_get_url

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

Description explicitly states read-only and no JSON writes, but lacks details on URL expiry, authentication needs, or performance considerations. Moderate coverage given no 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?

Two concise sentences, front-loaded with primary action and read-only note. No redundant information.

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?

For a URL generator with 9 parameters and no output schema, the description covers core functionality and key options. Minor omission of speed parameter explanation, but adequate for differentiation among siblings.

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?

Description lists 7 of 9 parameters (filePath, atlasPath, animation, skin, PMA, mipmaps, autoload) adding meaning beyond schema, but misses speed and baseUrl. Schema coverage is low (33%), so description partially compensates.

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 generates a browser preview URL for Spine assets, specifying supported options. It distinguishes from sibling editing tools by emphasizing read-only URL generation.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The read-only hint implies safe usage, but no comparison to alternatives like spine_preview_check_assets or other preview tools.

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