dry_run_workflow

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

Description clearly states the action is safe ('SEGURA'), does not send messages or modify anything. However, lacks details on what the simulation entails (e.g., does it return logs or errors?) and no mention of permissions or rate limits.

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?

Description is well-structured with clear purpose, usage triggers, safety note, and use case variations. Slightly verbose but efficient. The trailing '[query]' is a minor flaw.

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 simulation tool with no annotations or output schema, the description provides comprehensive guidance: when to use, how to use multiple times, safety, and preferred over alternatives. No gaps.

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 covers all 3 parameters with descriptions. The description adds context by suggesting multiple calls with different test_message, but this is reinforcement rather than new meaning. Baseline 3 due to high schema coverage.

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 simulates workflow execution without sending real messages. It differentiates from siblings by explicitly recommending this over save/update when validation is needed.

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 lists user phrases that trigger this tool ('pruebalo', 'simulalo', etc.) and advises preferring this over save/update for validation, providing clear when-to-use and alternatives.

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