Preview Outpass

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does so for the critical trait: it is preview-only, mutates nothing, and performs no network call to the campus API. It omits other traits such as auth requirements or whether the preview validates inputs, which keeps 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?

Two sentences, zero filler, and the most decision-relevant fact ('PREVIEW ONLY (no mutation)') is front-loaded in caps. The endpoint and output shape follow 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?

For a no-side-effect preview tool with a full output schema, the description covers what an agent needs: what it builds, where it would go, and that nothing is transmitted. It could be marginally richer about prerequisites, but nothing essential is missing.

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 all six parameters (out_date, out_time, service_id, description, return_date, return_time) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax, defaults, or format meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (build/preview) plus the exact resource (the JSON payload create_outpass would POST to /api/chc/request/v2) and the expected output (JSON + human summary). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling create_outpass.

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?

By naming create_outpass as the mutating counterpart and stating 'Nothing is sent to the campus API', it makes the dry-run-before-create use case clear. It stops short of an explicit 'use this when you want to verify before submitting' instruction, but the routing is unambiguous.

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