preview_denies

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. The term 'dry-run' clearly communicates non-destructive behavior, and the false-positive evaluation context adds behavioral insight. It could explicitly state no changes are made, but the meaning is clear.

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 concise sentences that front-load the core purpose. The second sentence adds context without fluff. No wasted words.

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's simplicity (one optional param, output schema present), the description covers the purpose and use case well. The main gap is the lack of explicit mapping from 'window' to since_hours, and some domain terms like 'rule priority' are undefined, but overall it is sufficient.

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 coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain the since_hours parameter or its relationship to the 'window'. The parameter name is self-explanatory, but the description adds no parameter-specific meaning, so it does not compensate for the lack of schema description.

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 function with specific verb 'Preview' and resource 'DENY counts per rule priority over the window'. It distinguishes itself from the sibling enforce_denies by explicitly labeling itself as a dry-run and mentioning promotion to enforce.

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 a clear use case: preview rules to evaluate false positives before promoting to enforce. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or state when not to use, so it falls short of a 5.

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