get_naming_examples

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly communicates the tool is non-mutating ('without saving it') and that results are a preview. It doesn't describe the output shape or error behavior, but for a simple preview tool the core side-effect and intent are disclosed.

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 two tight sentences with no filler. The key purpose and safety characteristic ('without saving it') are front-loaded, followed by the parameter guidance. Every sentence earns its place.

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 low-complexity tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description and input schema together fully cover what the agent needs: what it does, when to use it, and what to pass. The absence of an output schema is acceptable because 'Preview the filenames' conveys the essential return concept.

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 100%, and the schema already explains that config is a draft and that the saved config is used when omitted. The description reinforces this by saying 'Pass a naming config object to try a draft format', but adds little beyond what the schema provides. This meets the baseline for 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 uses a specific verb ('Preview') and resource ('filenames a naming format would produce'), and explicitly notes 'without saving it', distinguishing it from saving operations like update_naming_config. The 'draft format' phrasing makes its purpose unmistakable.

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?

It clearly states the use case: pass a naming config object to try a draft format. It does not explicitly name alternatives such as update_naming_config or get_naming_config, but the 'without saving it' contrast implies when this tool should be used over the saving tool. A small explicit mention of the alternative would make it a 5.

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