preview_file_relink_map_paths

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'previews' relinks, implying a non-destructive read-only operation, but it does not disclose whether any changes are made, whether the mapping file is validated, what happens if the mapping is incomplete, or what the output format is. For a tool with no annotations, this is a significant gap.

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 a single concise sentence that front-loads the core action ('Preview relinks') and the key qualifier ('from an explicit mapping file'). It is efficient and easy to parse, though it could add a bit more detail without becoming bloated.

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 the tool has no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is too thin. An agent cannot tell what the preview output looks like, whether the operation is safe, or how the mapping file should be structured. The sibling list shows many similar relink tools, so more context is needed to disambiguate and use this tool correctly.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'mapping file' and 'file assembly' which loosely map to mapping_path and assembly_path, but it does not explain the expected format of the mapping file, what 'assembly path' refers to, or how the two parameters relate. The description adds minimal meaning beyond the parameter names.

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 states a specific verb ('Preview'), a resource ('relinks for a file assembly'), and the source of the mapping ('from an explicit mapping file'). This distinguishes it from generic relink tools, though it doesn't explicitly name a sibling alternative. The phrase 'file assembly' and 'explicit mapping file' add useful specificity.

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 context: use this when you have an explicit mapping file and want to preview relinks for a file assembly. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like preview_relink_paths, preview_file_relink_paths, or build_relink_map_plan. The sibling list contains many similar relink tools, so clearer routing guidance would be valuable.

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