preview_mcdev_project_command

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it explicitly states read-only, guidance-only, no subprocess/hooks/auth-log reads/live checks, execution disabled, cannot authorize. It does not describe what the tool actually returns or whether it reads files, but the negative behavioral profile is unusually thorough.

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 key safety profile, but it is a dense, repetitive paragraph of mostly negative clauses. Sentences like 'Generic native effects are not proven project-local effects' are abstract, and 'Prevent concurrent filesystem mutation' is unclear in context.

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 7-parameter tool with a nested options object and no output schema, the description is incomplete on the positive side: it never explains what the preview returns, what 'guidance-only' concretely means, or how to interpret the result. It also provides no sibling differentiation, leaving an agent without enough to call it confidently.

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 86%, so the schema already documents most parameters (including options) well. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides; it only references credential/businessUnit mapping, which is already in the schema.

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 and resource: a 'retrieve/deploy preview' for an mcdev project, qualified by credential/businessUnit. It distinguishes itself from execution ('Not a dry run', 'execution remains disabled'), but it does not name or differentiate from siblings like run_mcdev_command or preview_mcdev_project_config.

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?

Usage is implied: call this to preview a retrieve/deploy command before execution, and it only verifies credential/businessUnit mapping. There is no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives, no prerequisites stated, and no exclusions beyond 'execution remains disabled'.

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