dry_run_request

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does disclose two non-obvious traits: no request is actually sent, and credentials in headers, query string and body are redacted. It does not cover required permissions, behavior for an unknown requestId, or how truncation interacts with maxBodyChars.

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?

Two tightly written sentences with no filler. The core purpose and the no-send guarantee are front-loaded, and the redaction caveat follows immediately.

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?

Having no output schema, the description usefully states the return shape (URL, method, headers, body preview) and the redaction guarantee. But for a 4-param tool with 25% schema coverage it leaves how definitionRelativePath, workspaceRoot and maxBodyChars shape the result unexplained.

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 only 25% (only workspaceRoot is documented in-schema), so the description should compensate but does not. It never mentions maxBodyChars and its truncation effect, workspaceRoot, or what definitionRelativePath contributes, mentioning only requestId implicitly.

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 gives a specific verb (build) and enumerates the exact artifacts produced (URL, method, headers, body preview), plus the key qualifier 'without sending the request'. It implicitly distinguishes itself from execute_api_request, though it never names that 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 sending the request' implies this is a safe preview/inspection step before execution, which is useful context. However, it never states when to prefer this over execute_api_request, nor any prerequisites or exclusions.

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