todo_transition_preview

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states the tool is a dry-run, meaning it will not mutate data, which is a crucial safety trait. The state machine also discloses the allowed statuses, though it doesn't detail validation rules or side effects beyond the non-mutating nature.

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?

The description is a single sentence that is front-loaded with the core purpose ('preview impact') and immediately followed by the state machine. There is no redundant information, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 required params, no nested objects) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and state machine. It lacks explicit parameter semantics and usage boundaries, but the output schema presumably handles return values, making the description largely adequate for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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%, so the description must compensate for the lack of parameter documentation. It does not explain item_id or new_status; the state machine only hints at valid values for new_status, while item_id semantics are left entirely to inference from the name. This is insufficient compensation for the absence of schema-level descriptions.

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 does a dry-run preview of item status transitions, using the specific verbs '预览' (preview) and 'dry-run'. The state machine inbox→todo→doing→done→archived further specifies the scope and distinguishes it from sibling tools like todo_transition_apply.

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 'dry-run' term clearly indicates this tool is for previewing before taking action, and sibling tool names (todo_transition_apply) reinforce the intended workflow. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, leaving the guidance implied rather than explicit.

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