scf_preview_document

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description clarifies the viewer-role permission level and the important behavior that no file rendering occurs. It also discloses that the result is structured JSON, which is useful since no output schema is present.

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?

One dense sentence with no filler. The core action, target, output type, permission note, and key behavioral contrast are all front-loaded and each clause earns its place.

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 simple read-only tool with two fully documented parameters and no nested structures, the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to decide when to call it. It could additionally define the exact JSON response shape, but the absence of an output schema is partly mitigated by saying the output is structured JSON.

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 100%: both org_id and document_id have descriptive text explaining their UUID format and how to obtain them. The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning, so the baseline 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 states a specific verb ('Preview'), a concrete resource ('a document's assembled content'), and the output form ('structured JSON'). It also distinguishes itself from file-export and raw-section tools by noting it returns the merged generated/edited result 'without rendering to a file.'

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 gives clear context: this is a read-only, viewer-role operation for inspecting the assembled document as JSON. It implicitly tells the agent not to use this when a rendered file is needed, though it does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools.

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