uvcs_name_preview

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds only that output is derived from workspace style rules; it says nothing about what happens when rules are missing or unconfigured, which matters for a preview tool.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. The purpose, both output forms and the rule source are all conveyed in twelve words.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description should ideally say what a 'preview' returns (a formatted name/message string) and whether it fails when no style rules are configured. It covers the core action but leaves the agent guessing about result shape and failure modes.

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%, including an enum on 'kind' and per-field descriptions for 'type', 'title', 'summary' and 'baseBranch'. The description adds no semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies — notably it doesn't clarify how 'title' vs 'summary' map to branch vs checkin kinds, which the description could have disambiguated.

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?

States a specific verb ('Preview') with two concrete resources ('branch name', 'checkin message') and names the source of truth ('workspace style rules'). This clearly separates it from mutation siblings like uvcs_branch_create_prepare or uvcs_checkin_prepare, though it doesn't explicitly name those siblings.

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 word 'Preview' implies a dry-run before an actual create/checkin, but there is no explicit 'use this before X' guidance, no mention of prerequisites (style rules configured via uvcs_style_setup_check), and no named alternative. Usage is inferable but not stated.

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