Preview the sanitized experience rows, map fixes, and public-site lessons queued for sharing before upload, so you can review exactly what will be sent; nothing is submitted.
What would be submitted to the shared review queue: sanitized experience rows, map fixes and lessons for public sites, not yet submitted. Nothing is sent. Show this to the human before share_upload.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and "Nothing is sent" is the single most important disclosure for a tool with a mutating sibling — it explicitly declares this is non-destructive. It also describes the content that will be inspected. It does not state what happens when the queue is empty or how large the preview can get, which are the remaining behavioral gaps.
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?
Three short clauses, no filler, and the critical "Nothing is sent" disclosure lands early. The human-confirmation instruction sits at the end rather than being front-loaded, which is a minor structural weakness for a gating tool.
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 zero-parameter preview with no output schema, the description substitutes well by enumerating what the return contains and asserting no side effects. The empty-queue case and any size limits on the preview are the only meaningful omissions.
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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. The description instead spends its words on the payload the empty call returns, which is the right use of space.
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 makes clear this is a dry-run of the shared review queue, enumerating exactly what it surfaces (sanitized experience rows, map fixes, lessons for public sites, not yet submitted). It distinguishes itself from the sibling share_upload by framing itself as the preview step. It is phrased as a noun clause rather than a verb+resource statement, which slightly softens the action, but the resource and scope are unambiguous.
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?
"Show this to the human before share_upload" gives explicit sequencing and names the alternative tool that performs the actual send. What is missing is a when-not condition (e.g., nothing queued, already confirmed), so the routing is clear but not complete.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.