preview_run

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

No annotations exist, so the description must disclose behavior. It mentions running './preview_run' and showing output, but does not explicitly state that no modifications are made. The 'preview' term implies safety, but the agent could benefit from an explicit statement about side effects or required permissions.

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 sentences long, front-loaded with the purpose, and contains no unnecessary words. Every sentence adds 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 single parameter and output schema, the description is mostly complete: it explains the tool's output and use case. However, it lacks documentation for the case_dir parameter, which is required.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, and the description does not mention the required parameter 'case_dir' at all. There is no guidance on what value to provide or any constraints. This is a significant gap.

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's function: 'Preview what a CESM run will look like without actually submitting.' It specifies what information is shown (PE layout, estimated memory, wallclock, batch script) and distinguishes from siblings like case_submit, which actually submits.

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 provides clear context by stating 'without actually submitting' and 'useful for validating resource settings before committing to case_submit.' This implies when to use it (before case_submit) and implies the alternative (case_submit). However, it does not explicitly exclude other scenarios.

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