Plan / dry-run a command (no execution)

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

The description emphasizes that nothing is executed, which is critical behavioral info. However, it lacks disclosure on prediction reliability, limitations, or resource impact. With no annotations, more detail would help.

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 concise and front-loaded: first sentence defines purpose, second gives usage guidance, third clarifies non-execution. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description explains expected outputs (blast-radius, reversibility, mutations). It provides sufficient context for an agent to understand when and how to use the tool.

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 single parameter 'command' has 100% schema description coverage ('The command to analyze.'). The tool description adds no new semantic meaning beyond that, meeting the baseline expectation.

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: statically predict a command's effects without executing it. It specifies outputs like blast-radius category, reversibility, and file mutations, and distinguishes from sibling tools like sh_run (which executes).

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 advises using this tool before destructive or unfamiliar commands, providing clear usage context. It does not explicitly list when not to use or alternatives, but the guidance is actionable.

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