driftguard_dry_run_command

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description bears the full burden. It usefully discloses that the tool predicts system calls and file impacts without executing, but it does not state accuracy limits, whether the command's binaries are actually invoked in a sandbox, or side-effect guarantees. The predictive, non-executing intent is conveyed but not fully substantiated.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that identifies the tool class first ('Simulatore predittivo di esecuzione') then the specifics. No redundant or filler wording.

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?

For a one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description gives enough to understand what the prediction produces (system calls and impacted files). It stops short of describing result shape or limitations, but overall it is adequate for the tool's simplicity.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('Il comando da simulare'), so the schema already fully documents it. The description adds no format hints (shell syntax, quoting, absolute vs relative paths) beyond what the schema provides, making baseline 3 appropriate.

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 names a specific behavior — a predictive execution simulator that forecasts system calls (unlink, mkdir, network) and affected files before a command runs. This is far more concrete than a generic 'dry run' and lets an agent distinguish it from driftguard_preview_rollback or driftguard_safety_check, though it never names those siblings 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?

The phrase 'prima di lanciare il comando' implies the intended timing (a pre-execution check) but gives no explicit when-not conditions or alternatives. An agent can infer it should be used before real execution, but there's no routing guidance toward safety_check, policy_check, or preview_rollback for overlapping needs.

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