perspective_evaluate_dry_run

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses side effects: creates and immediately deletes a temporary perspective, database state unchanged. Also specifies return format { tasks: Task[] } and mentions single OmniJS execution.

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?

Single paragraph that efficiently covers purpose, mechanism, pairing, prerequisite, usage warning, return type, side effects, and example. No redundant sentences; every sentence adds value.

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 2 parameters (one required) and no output schema, the description covers all necessary context: behavior, side effects, return type, prerequisite, and usage example. Complete for an AI agent to select and invoke correctly.

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% with detailed parameter descriptions. The description adds minimal new parameter info beyond the schema (e.g., example usage), but provides valuable context like the empty array behavior already present in schema. 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?

The description clearly states the tool previews a proposed perspective rule tree without persisting it, and contrasts with perspective_evaluate for saved perspectives. The verb 'preview' and resource 'perspective rule tree' are specific and differentiated from 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 explains when to use: as part of propose-then-save flow with perspective_create, and warns not to use for saved perspectives. Also notes the OmniFocus Pro prerequisite and the error return if not met.

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