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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden. It transparently states it 'Returns feasibility copy only' and 'Does not accept or return mappings, file paths, generated content, or validation notes', which clarifies its limited behavior. It also says 'no-data', implying no data is transmitted, but does not mention side effects or authentication, so it is not a perfect 5.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose ('Free no-data preview for moving a harness') and remains concise across three sentences. Every sentence adds value: the tool list, the return type, and the explicit exclusions. There is no fluff.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is quite complete: it explains what it does, what it returns (feasibility copy), and what it does not handle. It could be slightly more explicit about the nature of 'feasibility copy', but overall it is sufficient for an agent to decide on usage.

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 both parameters (from, to) described, so the baseline is 3. The description lists the supported tool names, but this repeats the examples already present in the schema descriptions. It adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so no score above baseline.

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 provides a 'Free no-data preview for moving a harness between any two of the 13 supported tools', using a specific verb ('preview') and resource ('moving a harness'). It lists the exact tools, distinguishing it from sibling tools like preview_build_setup, which focuses on build setup.

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: it is for previewing a move without data, and it explicitly states what it does not accept or return (mappings, file paths, etc.), which serves as a 'when-not' guideline. However, it does not name alternative tools for related tasks (e.g., list_targets for the full matrix), falling short of a 5.

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