preprocess_config

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does not mention side effects, return value (despite output schema existing), idempotency, or required permissions. It focuses only on what the tool does, not how it behaves.

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 highly concise: two sentences and a bullet list. It front-loads the primary purpose and then provides supporting details in an organized list. Every sentence adds value, with no redundant or filler content.

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?

The description covers tool purpose, usage context, and parameter details well. However, it omits any mention of the return value or side effects. Since an output schema exists, the description could be more complete by referencing what the tool returns, but it is still effective for selection and invocation.

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?

With 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context beyond the schema by listing supported file formats (e.g., .config, .h, Makefile, JSON) and explaining when to use manual define overrides. This enriches parameter understanding.

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 loads preprocessing config for conditional compilation, with specific verb 'load' and resource 'preprocessing config'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'configure' by targeting use cases for C/C++ #ifdef blocks, Linux Kconfig, and Makefile-based builds.

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 explicitly states when to call ('when analyzing C/C++ projects with #ifdef blocks, Linux kernel with Kconfig, or Makefile-based builds') and lists supported file types. However, it does not provide explicit exclusions or alternative tools, which would earn a 5.

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