preview_file_relink_paths

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It implies a non-destructive read operation ('Preview', 'reading'), but says nothing about side effects, required permissions/access, return format, or failure behavior. The core read-only trait is conveyed only by implication, not explicit statement.

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?

A single sentence with no wasted words, and the primary action is front-loaded. It is appropriately sized for what it does say.

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 3-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, operating in a dense cluster of similarly named relink tools, this description is inadequate. It lacks parameter semantics, discriminator information against near-identical siblings, and behavioral details that an agent needs to call it 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 by explaining the parameters. It does not address assembly_path, search_root, or relink_all at all. The parameter names are self-explanatory enough to salvage a score above 1, but the description contributes zero semantic value 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 states a clear verb+resource ('Preview persistent relinks') and grounds the mechanism ('reading the Sources entry of an assembly file directly'). However, it does not differentiate from very similar siblings such as preview_file_relink_map_paths, preview_relink_paths, and preview_relink_map_paths, all of which appear to serve overlapping purposes. The distinction is only implicit, requiring the agent to infer what separates this from the others.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no reference to any alternative tool. Given the large cluster of relink preview/build tools in the sibling list, the agent receives zero help deciding whether this tool or a sibling is appropriate for a given task.

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