ps_execute_dry_run

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the tool returns 'decision and coverage analysis', which gives some behavioral insight, but it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, side effects, or error handling. For a tool with 4 parameters and no annotations, this is insufficient transparency.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core functionality ('Check if an action would succeed without executing') and adds the return value. There's no wasted text, making it appropriately 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 complexity (4 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the parameters mean, how the 'decision and coverage analysis' is structured, or any behavioral nuances. For a tool that likely involves significant logic, this leaves too many gaps.

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%, meaning none of the 4 parameters (agentId, frame, action, parentFrame) are documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond the general context of checking actions, failing to compensate for the schema gap. This leaves parameters largely unexplained.

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's purpose: to check if an action would succeed without executing it, and it returns decision and coverage analysis. This is a specific verb ('check') with a clear resource/scope ('an action'), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'ps_execute' or 'ps_validate'.

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 implies usage for pre-execution validation ('without executing'), suggesting it should be used before performing actual actions. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'ps_execute' (for actual execution) or 'ps_validate' (for validation), nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions.

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