Preview a launch

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, and the description is consistent with that by calling it a 'free dry run'. It goes beyond the annotations by disclosing that it is cost-free and by listing the full set of computed outputs an agent will get back.

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 dense sentence describing the tool plus one short directive sentence, front-loaded with the dry-run nature and cost. No filler; every clause carries information.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the return contents (counts, DR stats, missing items, unlock info, cost). Combined with the fully documented params and read-only annotations, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret it.

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 the parameters (including the auto/include/exclude union and auto_replace) are already fully documented in the schema. The description only says it takes 'the same arguments' as the launch tools, adding little beyond the structured data. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('free dry run of launch_project / add_directories') with the same arguments, and enumerates exactly what it reports (submission count, top/median DR, gaps, unlock potential, cost). This clearly distinguishes it from the real launch_project and add_directories siblings.

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?

Explicitly routes usage: names the two alternatives it mirrors and instructs 'Show the numbers to the user before launching', giving a clear sequencing context. It does not state any when-not-to-use condition, but the recommended flow is unambiguous.

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