gia_dry_run_pack

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint. The description adds valuable context: it previews commands, compatibility, validation, blast radius, and returns a hash for binding, reinforcing its read-only, advisory nature.

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 sentences efficiently convey the tool's output and classification. It is front-loaded with the core functionality. Slightly more structured formatting could improve, but it is concise.

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 no output schema, the description covers return values (inputsHash and preview details). It is sufficient for an agent to understand what the tool returns and how to use it. Minor missing details about 'hydrated commands' would not hinder usage.

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?

Input schema has 100% description coverage for both parameters (pack_id and variable_overrides). The description does not add significant new meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is 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 clearly states the tool provides a preview of remediation pack execution, including hydrated commands, compatibility check, validation, and blast radius. It distinguishes itself from execution tools like gia_apply_pack.

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 implies usage before applying a pack by noting it returns inputsHash for approval binding, and classifies itself as ADVISORY read-only. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or name alternative tools.

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