preview_upload

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

Annotations only declare readOnly/destructive/openWorld hints; the description goes well beyond by stating nothing is transmitted, explaining git-tracked vs .gitignore-driven selection, enumerating the always-excluded categories (secrets, media, >1 MB, dependencies, build output), and noting that committable secrets files surface as problems. This is exactly the safety-adjacent context an agent needs before a check.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by the dry-run caveat, the inclusion/exclusion rules, and a compact Args block. The exclusion list is dense but each item earns its place; nothing is padded.

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?

With one parameter, no output schema, and read-only annotations, the description covers what is listed, what is omitted, and the secrets-problem reporting. It stops short of describing the shape of the returned lists, but the semantic content is otherwise complete for a preview tool.

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 0%, so the description must carry the lone parameter, and it does: 'path: absolute path to the app's folder' specifies both the format (absolute) and the target (the app's folder), beyond the bare 'string' type in the schema. Modest but sufficient compensation.

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?

A specific verb ('List') plus a precisely scoped resource ('the files a hosted check of this folder would send to appledger.net, and what stays behind'), and 'Nothing is sent' clarifies the dry-run nature. The contrast with the actual hosted check is implied but the sibling check_app is never named, so differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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 first sentence establishes clear context for when to call it: to preview what a hosted check would upload. There are no explicit exclusions or a named alternative ('use this instead of check_app when...'), which keeps it below a 5.

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