cst_sweep_preview_tool

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the most important behavioral trait – no simulation is launched, so the call is effectively a read-only expansion – but says nothing about validation of the spec, truncation behavior, or error handling for malformed parameter maps.

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 short sentences, zero waste, with the action front-loaded and the scoping caveat second. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not needed, which offsets some thinness. Still, for a tool whose entire input is an undocumented nested object and which supports a 'mode' switch and a case cap, the description leaves the agent guessing about the spec format and the meaning of the count it returns.

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 description coverage is 0% and the schema carries only bare titles, so the description must compensate but does not. It never explains 'mode' (cartesian vs. other strategies), what 'max_cases' does to the reported count, or the shape of the nested 'parameters' object, even though 'report the case count' is directly tied to max_cases.

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?

States a specific verb+resource pair ('Expand a parameter sweep spec into concrete cases') plus the observable output ('report the case count'). The clause 'Does not start CST' cleanly separates it from the sibling cst_sweep_run_tool, so an agent can route without opening either schema.

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?

'Does not start CST' strongly implies a dry-run/preview context, i.e. use this before actually running a sweep. However, it never names cst_sweep_run_tool as the alternative or states the condition ('call this first to size the sweep'), leaving the usage decision implied rather than explicit.

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