agent_dry_run_close_task

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it does well: it discloses the return contents (allowed/rejected ops, bus publications, file writes) and that nothing is executed. It does not mention auth requirements or any limits, leaving some behavioral gaps.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the operation and its return shape, with zero 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?

The return shape is well described and there is no output schema, which helps, but with eight undocumented parameters the definition leaves the agent guessing about how to construct the payload it is meant to validate.

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?

Eight parameters at 0% schema description coverage, and the description explains none of them — gotcha, rewrites, hotUpdate, discoveries, escalations, taskLogEntry are all opaque. This is a significant gap the description fails to compensate for.

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 ('dry-run') and resource ('close-task operation') and immediately clarifies it returns a write plan without executing. This distinguishes it from the sibling close_agent_task and dry_run_close_repo_task by making the no-side-effect scope explicit.

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?

Gives clear context — validate a payload before committing — which implies when to prefer this over the real close operation. No explicit exclusions or named alternative, but the use case is unambiguous.

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