dry_run_workflow

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that only ephemeral logs are written to a temporary workspace, and confirms no side effects occur. This adds valuable behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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 with the purpose. It uses two focused sentences with additional detail in a second sentence. No unnecessary repetition, though the second sentence could be split for scanning.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description explicitly states the return structure: {status, outputs, preview} and explains 'preview' as a human-readable list of steps. It covers both parameters adequately and addresses the tool's safety profile. Complete for its complexity.

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 coverage is 100% so baseline is 3. The description adds that 'workflow' can be a name from list_workflows or a file path, and 'params' are optional with defaults used when omitted. This adds modest value beyond the schema descriptions.

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 purpose: 'Preview what a workflow would do without executing any task.' It specifies the verb (Preview), the resource (workflow), and distinguishes from siblings like run_workflow and list_workflows by emphasizing non-execution.

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 use for inspecting side effects before real execution, and clarifies that no tasks are executed. It implicitly distinguishes from run_workflow but does not explicitly state when not to use or name alternatives beyond the context. A clear usage context is provided.

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