preview_round

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive hints. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: it is non-authoritative, does not commit any decision, requires an active draft, and uses the engine preview path only. This meaningfully discloses behavior and prerequisites.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the most critical trait ('Read-only simulation'). Every sentence contributes distinct information with no redundancy or filler.

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 zero parameters, an output schema present, and annotations covering safety, the description fully contextualizes the tool. It adds the essential prerequisite (active draft) and clarifies the non-committal nature, leaving nothing critical 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so there is no parameter meaning to add. Per baseline, a 4 is appropriate because no semantic gaps exist for the agent to worry about.

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: 'Read-only simulation' for previewing a round. Also clarifies it is non-authoritative and 'does not commit any decision', distinguishing it from committing tools like lock_round.

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 clearly indicates this is for non-committal simulation and requires an active draft, giving an agent a clear condition for use. It does not explicitly name an alternative tool for when a commit is desired, but the 'does not commit' phrasing provides a strong implicit exclusion.

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