get_rename_preview

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of revealing behavior. It does this well by communicating that this tool only previews and does not apply changes, and that applying is a separate step via the RenameFiles command.

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 sentences, no filler, with the core preview behavior stated first and the follow-up action stated second. Every phrase 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 simple two-parameter preview tool, the description covers what it does, what it returns (old and new paths), and how to apply the rename. No output schema exists, but the description sufficiently communicates the return value shape.

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%, so the parameters series_id and season_number are already fully documented. The description adds context about the tool's purpose but does not need to redefine parameters since the schema covers them.

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 clearly states the tool previews which existing files would be renamed under the current naming configuration and shows old and new paths. This distinguishes it from related siblings like get_naming_examples or run_command, which serve different purposes.

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 gives clear context: use this to preview renames, then run RenameFiles to apply. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the preview-then-apply workflow is strongly implied.

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