optimization.dryRun

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

With zero annotations the description carries the full burden, and it discloses the important traits: non-destructive ('never writes'), return value ('projected savings'), safety for automated callers, and the required MODELBOUND_API_KEY. It omits rate limits or what state the projection is computed against, keeping it from a 5.

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?

Four short, front-loaded sentences with zero filler: identity, return value, safety, and a hard requirement. Every sentence earns its place.

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 five-parameter, no-annotation tool with no output schema, the safety and auth story is well covered, but the description never addresses the parameters the agent must populate, leaving a real gap before it can be called correctly.

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 0% across five parameters (file_id, pack_id, agent_id, skill_id, intensity), and the description adds no meaning for any of them. It does not explain which identifiers are needed or how 'intensity' changes the projection, so the agent gets no help on invocation.

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 clear operation (a dry-run variant of optimization.run) and explicitly distinguishes it from that sibling by 'never writes' and by returning projected savings. It loses a point only because it never says what optimization actually does (files, packs, agents, skills).

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?

'Same as optimization.run but never writes' tells the agent to prefer this variant whenever it wants a preview, and 'Safe to call from auto-suggest hooks' gives an explicit qualifying context. No explicit exclusions are given, but the when-to-use is clear.

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