review_rule.preview

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. Description confirms non-destructive nature but adds no new behavioral traits beyond that (e.g., rate limits, prerequisites).

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 sentence, no filler. Efficiently conveys core purpose without unnecessary details.

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 has an output schema (not shown) and annotations, the description is minimal but covers the key point. However, it omits how to provide the rule (via rule object or rule_id), which is important for correct invocation.

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%, but description does not explain any parameter meaning. Parameter names (rule, job_id, rule_id) are self-explanatory to some extent, but the description should add clarification, especially for rule vs rule_id.

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?

Description uses specific verb 'preview' and resource 'review rule' with context 'against the current review queue without changing anything'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like review_rule.apply which applies changes.

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?

Implicitly indicates safe preview usage by stating 'without changing anything', but does not explicitly name alternatives or when not to use. Context from sibling names (e.g., review_rule.apply) helps infer guidelines.

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