file_preflight

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds value by confirming it returns a 'read-only packet' and listing the contents, but does not disclose error behavior or edge cases. No contradiction with annotations.

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 concise, using three sentences to convey purpose and usage. It is front-loaded with the core function and avoids redundancy, though could be slightly more compact.

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 tool's complexity (10 parameters, composite output) and the presence of annotations and an output schema, the description adequately covers the operational context. It omits error handling and prerequisites but is sufficient for typical use.

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?

Input schema has 10 parameters with 0% description coverage. The description only mentions the return items and not the parameters like freshnessPolicy, cacheStalenessMs, or limits. The description does not compensate for the missing schema descriptions, providing minimal parameter guidance.

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 identifies the tool as a pre-edit composer for one file, listing the specific data it returns (findings, freshness, runs, etc.) and distinguishing it from sibling tools like file_findings, verification_state, etc., by stating it replaces multiple separate calls.

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 tool explicitly states when to use it ('Use before editing a file when an agent needs the operational gate') and mentions what it replaces, but does not provide explicit when-not-to-use scenarios or prerequisites, slightly reducing clarity.

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