preview_command

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does disclose the single most important behavioral trait (no execution side effects). However, it never explains what a 'preview' actually contains (shell expansion, validation, risk analysis) or whether it touches the environment, which is critical for a command tool.

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?

A single tight sentence with the key safety qualifier front-loaded after the verb. Efficient, though arguably too terse given the ambiguity of 'preview'.

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?

No annotations and no output schema, so the description must define the return value and side-effect profile; instead it leaves ambiguous whether preview parses, expands, or validates the command. An agent cannot predict the result it will get.

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?

Only one parameter and schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents 'command' fully. The description adds nothing about format, quoting, or multi-command input; baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb ('Preview') and resource ('a command') and adds the distinguishing qualifier 'without executing it', which separates it from the many execute_* siblings. It stops short of naming a sibling explicitly.

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 phrase 'without executing it' implies a pre-flight/dry-run use case versus execute_command, but usage is only implied; there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative.

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