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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so 'Makes no changes' reinforces that rather than adding new information. However, the description adds useful behavioral context about the output contract ('matching works plus an integrity fingerprint'), which goes beyond what annotations convey.

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 short sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, and the safety guarantee is stated immediately, making the description easy to scan and understand.

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 lack of an output schema and the 0% schema description coverage, the description provides the essential purpose and output but leaves input object shapes undefined. An agent may not know what to supply for 'workspace' or what an 'integrity fingerprint' represents without additional domain knowledge.

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 carry the burden of explaining the parameters. It hints that 'works' are the items being matched and 'automation' is the preview target, but the 'workspace' parameter is entirely unexplained, and the nested object structures remain opaque.

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 uses a specific verb ('Preview') with a clear resource ('an automation') and states the result ('matching works plus an integrity fingerprint'). 'Makes no changes' distinguishes it from the sibling kata_run_automation, making the tool's role immediately clear.

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 safety cue 'Makes no changes' implies use for non-destructive previews, but the description never explicitly says when to choose this tool over alternatives like kata_run_automation. No exclusions or if-then conditions are provided.

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