command_fake_run

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, but the description adds the crucial behavioral guarantee that no command is ever executed and that the output is policy acceptance/denial plus audit metadata. It does not contradict idempotentHint=false (audit ids can vary per call). The remaining gap is error/failure behavior, which isn't covered.

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 with no filler, and the most important fact (never executes the command) is front-loaded right after the purpose statement.

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 an 11-parameter, security-sensitive tool with no output schema, the description conveys the essential contract: nothing runs, only policy evaluation and audit metadata are produced. It leaves out return shape details and HTTP-vs-stdio authority_file handling, but those are largely covered by the schema's own parameter descriptions.

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%, so every parameter (cwd, argv, timeout, shell_allowed, shell_reason, authority_file, etc.) is already documented with constraints like 'max 15m' and 'must be inside workspace_root'. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 and resource ('Run the command policy') and adds the key qualifier 'return a fake runner result'. The 'never executes the command' clause makes it easy to distinguish from a real execution path and from siblings like command_policy_check, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 when to use it ('it only proves policy acceptance/denial and audit metadata') — i.e., for dry-run validation rather than execution. It does not explicitly contrast this with command_policy_check or command_policy_audit, leaving the agent to infer the boundary between them.

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