Generate a dry-run plan to preview renaming and sorting a messy folder into folders; show the proposed changes without moving files.
Build a dry-run plan for a folder. Nothing is moved. Show the plan to the user.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | ||
| limit | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| root | Yes | ||
| moves | No | ||
| created | Yes | ||
| extra_roots | No | Folders outside root that config rules may move files into |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, and the description usefully reinforces this with 'Nothing is moved.' telling the agent the call is a safe dry run. It adds no information about whether a plan artifact is persisted or how long a plan stays valid, which is the remaining behavioral gap.
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?
Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the safety and UX constraints. Nothing is padded, though the final directive is terse enough that it reads as a fragment rather than a complete instruction.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the tool is structurally simple with one required parameter. The unresolved gap is the unexplained 'limit' parameter and the absence of any note on plan persistence or how the plan connects to apply_plan, leaving the workflow slightly under-specified.
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 0% and the description never mentions 'path' or 'limit'. The one required parameter and the pagination default are left entirely for the agent to infer from bare titles, so the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.
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 states a specific verb+resource (build a dry-run plan for a folder) and clarifies scope with 'Nothing is moved', which implicitly separates it from apply_plan. It never names the sibling explicitly, so an agent must infer the planning-vs-execution distinction rather than being routed to it.
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?
'Build a dry-run plan' and 'Show the plan to the user' imply this is the pre-execution step and that the plan should be surfaced rather than acted on. However, it never states when to prefer this over apply_plan or what must happen between planning and applying, so usage is implied rather than spelled out.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.