tasks_archive_dry_run

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explicitly discloses the key behavioral trait: 'Ничего не пишет' (writes nothing), and labels itself 'READ-ONLY'. However, it does not describe the return format (e.g., list of task IDs) or any other side effects, which is a minor gap given no output schema exists.

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 and front-loaded with the most critical information ('READ-ONLY preview'). Every phrase adds value: it states the purpose, the object, and the safety guarantee. No wasted words.

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 there is no output schema and the description is short, it still conveys the core purpose (preview which tasks would be moved). The word 'preview' implies it returns a list of tasks, but this is not explicitly stated. The tool is relatively simple, and the schema provides parameter details, so the description is mostly complete with a minor omission about the return value.

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 schema covers all 4 parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning about the parameters themselves. It does not clarify how 'status' or 'final_stage_match' interact, but the schema already explains them adequately.

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 a specific verb ('preview') and resource ('завершённые задачи проекта' / completed tasks of the project), and explicitly marks it as 'READ-ONLY'. This distinguishes it from the sibling 'tasks_archive' which likely performs the actual move. The scope is unambiguous.

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 context: this is a dry-run preview to see which completed tasks would move to the final stage, without performing any writes. It implies its use as a pre-check before the actual archive operation, but does not explicitly name the alternative tool (tasks_archive) or state 'use when you want to preview before archiving'.

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