whodb_platform_preview_install_package

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds that workspace targeting is per-call and does not change defaults, which is useful scope context but is also present in the schema.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and no wasted verbiage. Efficient and easy to scan, though terse for a tool with this many siblings.

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 read-only, idempotent nature is carried by annotations, and the description enumerates what the preview returns (contents, requirements, conflicts). There is no output schema, but for a preview tool the described outputs are sufficient; only routing vs sibling previews 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 description coverage is 100%, so all three parameters, including the nested workspace object, are documented in the schema itself. The description only restates the workspace targeting behavior, adding no syntax or format detail beyond it; 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: previews a package installation's contents, requirements, and conflicts. That distinguishes it from the forbidden siblings like whodb_platform_package (detail) or whodb_platform_preview_import_package, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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?

No when-to-use guidance. With siblings such as preview_import_package, preview_shared_install, and preview_shared_import, the agent gets no criteria for choosing this preview over those, nor whether it is a required step before a real install.

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