sed_preview

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

Despite no annotations, the description explicitly states 'dry run with sed, no modification,' disclosing the key safety trait. It also indicates preview behavior for the queue. It does not cover edge cases like empty queue or exact output format, but the core behavioral disclosure is solid.

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 two concise sentences, front-loading the primary purpose and adding optional usage. Every word contributes value, with no redundancy or fluff.

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 simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, safety, and optional filtering. It does not specify the response format, but that is not essential for a straightforward preview tool and the description is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke it.

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 input schema already fully describes the single optional 'path' parameter with 100% coverage, including its dry-run purpose. The description's mention of 'specific file' and 'dry run' essentially duplicates the schema, adding no new semantic meaning.

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 states the tool's function: 'Preview all pending sed expressions in the batch queue' with a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes from sibling tools like sed_add, sed_execute, and sed_clear by focusing on preview and dry-run behavior.

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 provides clear usage context: preview the batch queue, or optionally preview sed output on a specific file with a dry run (no modification). This implies a safe pre-execution check, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or give when-not-to-use guidance.

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