preflight_demo

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

Annotations already mark readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the description's 'READ-ONLY' is redundant. However, it adds value by stating no network calls and no credentials, and that it uses synthetic data shipped with the package—behavioral details not present in annotations. No contradiction.

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 three short sentences, each earning its place: the first states the action and safety profile, the second gives key behavioral context, and the third explains practical utility. It is front-loaded with READ-ONLY and has no 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 demo tool with one optional parameter and no required inputs, the description fully covers what the agent needs: what it does, that it's safe (read-only, no network/credentials), and when it's useful (showing a report). No output schema exists, but the description doesn't need to detail report structure for a demo. Complete for its purpose.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%—the parameter max_samples is described as 'Affected records shown per finding.' The tool description does not mention the parameter at all, but since the schema fully covers it, the baseline of 3 applies. No additional semantic value added beyond the schema.

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 runs a bundled synthetic demo campaign and returns a readiness report. The word 'demo' and 'synthetic' distinguish it from siblings like preflight_files or preflight_instantly_campaign, which likely operate on real data. This is a specific verb+resource with clear differentiation.

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 explicitly notes it's 'useful for showing what a report looks like,' providing a direct use case. It also hints at no network calls and no credentials, implying it's safe for testing. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to prefer this over siblings, so it lacks explicit exclusions or alternative comparisons.

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