preview_role_prompt

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description still adds real value by asserting fidelity — the text comes from the same code a real dispatch uses — and by naming what is included (provider, write-file permission). That is meaningful context an agent could not infer from the annotations alone.

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 the no-side-effect guarantee, each carrying distinct information. The only minor waste is restating the role set that the schema already lists.

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; the description covers purpose, side-effect posture, build fidelity, and a pointer to the related settings tool. Nothing an agent needs to invoke this correctly 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 coverage is 100% and both parameters are documented in the schema, including the role examples. The description's role list (SA/SD/RD/SD-RD/REVIEW) largely duplicates the schema's enumeration and adds no format or constraint details, so 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 and resource: 'Preview exactly what a role ... would be sent given current settings, without dispatching anything.' The no-dispatch clause cleanly separates it from dispatch_agent, so an agent can tell the two apart without opening either schema.

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?

Gives a clear context of use (inspecting what a dispatch would contain before committing) plus an explicit companion call: 'Use get_project_settings to see the configuration behind it.' It stops short of naming an explicit when-not-to-use case beyond the implied 'don't use this to actually dispatch', so it is not a full 5.

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