haops_preview_skill_cascade

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

The description explicitly states 'Read-only — does not mutate,' which is the key behavioral trait. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries full burden and adequately addresses the tool's safety profile. However, it could be more transparent about the nature of the output (e.g., a list of affected consumers) or potential edge cases.

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 two concise sentences, front-loading the core purpose and critical usage guidance. Every sentence adds value: the first states what it does and its read-only nature, the second provides a concrete use case. 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 no annotations or output schema, the description covers the essential context: purpose, safety (read-only), and usage sequence. It does not describe return format or prerequisites beyond the input parameters, but the complexity is moderate and the description is sufficient for an agent to infer likely behavior.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds minimal parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides. It mentions 'named skill' which maps to the 'name' parameter, but does not elaborate on 'scope', 'projectSlug', or 'raw'. Agent must rely on schema descriptions, which are clear but could be reinforced in the 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 purpose: 'Preview which consumers (role templates, skill packs, project protocols) would need re-wiring if the named skill is bumped via PUT.' It uses a specific verb 'Preview' and identifies the resource and scope. This distinguishes it from siblings like haops_update_skill and haops_preview_role_template_cascade.

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 explicit usage guidance: 'Use BEFORE calling haops_update_skill({ ..., cascade: true }) on a high-impact skill to estimate blast radius.' This tells the agent exactly when and in what sequence to use this tool. It also clarifies it is read-only, further guiding appropriate use.

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