get_rename_preview

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 states the tool only previews, returns only files whose names would change, and does not apply changes. This communicates the key non-destructive behavioral trait. It does not detail the exact return payload, but the preview scope is clearly disclosed.

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 senttenences, no fluff, front-loaded with purpose and key behavior. Every word adds value: preview scope, filtered output, and the apply alternative are all included.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what is previewed, what is returned, and how to actually apply changes. Minor gaps remain about the exact fields in the returned rename previews, but nothing blocks correct invocation.

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 100%, and the parameter description ('Radarr movie ids to preview') already explains the only input. The tool description adds no new meaning about the parameter, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Preview') and resource ('files would be renamed'), and clearly distinguishes this read-only preview from the apply step (RenameFiles command) and from sibling tools like get_naming_examples. An agent can tell exactly what this tool does without ambiguity.

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 description explicitly directs the agent to 'run the RenameFiles command to apply', establishing when to use this preview tool versus the action that performs the rename. It does not enumerate alternative preview tools or exclusions, but the usage context is clear enough.

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