Dry Run Patch

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

With no annotations, the description implies read-only behavior ('show'), but it does not explicitly state that no modifications occur. Lack of details on side effects, authorization, or error handling leaves some ambiguity.

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?

Single sentence of 7 words is concise, but lacks essential details that would justify its brevity. It could be expanded to include parameter context without becoming verbose.

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 no output schema and minimal description, the tool's behavior and return format are unclear. Missing information about what 'show' produces (e.g., list of operations, diff). Not complete for effective use.

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 description adds no information about the three parameters (dryRun, confirm, operations). Despite 0% schema coverage, the description does not explain their purpose, defaults, or constraints, especially the 'confirm' parameter with const: true.

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 'Show patch operations that would be applied' clearly indicates the tool displays a preview of patch operations without applying them. However, it does not explicitly state it is a dry-run simulation, relying on the tool name. Differentiates from siblings like apply_patch, but could be more precise.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like apply_patch or validate_patch. The description does not indicate prerequisite steps, best practices, or scenarios where this tool is preferred.

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