write_project_file_preview

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It mentions 'safe' and 'preview' which implies non-destructive behavior, but doesn't disclose important details like permission requirements, rate limits, what makes it 'safe', or the actual behavioral impact. The description is too vague about the tool's operational characteristics.

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, efficient sentence that communicates the core purpose. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the main action. However, it could be slightly more structured by separating purpose from output details.

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 tool with 3 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. The presence of an output schema means return values don't need explanation, but the description should do more to explain parameter usage and behavioral context given the mutation-like nature of a 'write preview' operation.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage for 3 parameters, the description adds minimal value. It mentions 'hashes, line summary, and textual diff preview' which hints at outputs but doesn't explain what 'path', 'content', or 'maxDiffLines' parameters mean or how they affect the preview. The description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of parameter documentation.

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's purpose: 'Preview a safe workspace file write' with specific outputs (hashes, line summary, textual diff preview). It distinguishes from sibling 'read_project_file' by focusing on write preview rather than reading, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other write-related tools.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions 'safe workspace file write' but doesn't specify prerequisites, when to use this preview versus actual write operations, or how it relates to other file manipulation tools in the sibling list.

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