Preview Resolved Postman Requests

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds value by disclosing the return content (redacted URLs, headers, body mode/preview, method counts, write-request count, warnings) and the fact that it does not execute HTTP calls, which reinforces the safety profile without contradicting annotations.

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 sentences: the first defines function and outputs, the second gives usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 complexity (8 params, nested objects, no output schema), the description provides a solid summary of return values and the key use case. It doesn't detail all return fields but enough for an agent to form a mental model. The absence of an output schema is partially compensated by listing the return categories.

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?

The input schema has 100% parameter description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema, mainly reinforcing 'folder or single request' and mentioning environment for auth, but the schema already provides thorough per-parameter descriptions.

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 resolves variables for a folder or single request without executing HTTP calls, using a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like run_folder/run_request by explicitly positioning itself as a pre-execution preview.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool: 'Use this before run_folder/run_request to confirm targets, auth scope, and write-method safety.' This directly provides usage context relative to alternatives.

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