Soxoa Automation Planner

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, and the description reinforces this by explicitly stating that it does not connect accounts, start provider work, store a plan, send messages, or execute the workflow. It also discloses the concrete planning artifacts returned, which is rich 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 front-loaded with the core action, then states outputs, then boundaries. Every sentence earns its place: the first defines the input facts, the second defines the returned plan contents, and the third clearly scopes what the tool will not do.

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 13-parameter planning tool with an output schema and safety annotations, the description is largely complete: it explains the purpose, expected input facts, returned planning artifacts, and explicit non-execution boundaries. It falls short only on sibling routing and full optional-parameter coverage.

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%, so the description must carry the burden. It enumerates most required workflow facts (trigger, inputs, desired output, systems, review owner, risk, sensitivity, success checks), but omits workflowName, constraints, and systemsAlreadyUsed and gives no format or enum details for fields like riskLevel.

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 states a specific verb and resource: it builds a pilot plan from supplied workflow facts and returns proposed steps, tools, gates, checks, rollout, and a Markdown plan. It is clear what the tool produces, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings estimate_automation_roi and prioritize_automation_workflows.

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 says what the tool does but never says when to choose it over estimate_automation_roi or prioritize_automation_workflows. It also gives no prerequisites or decision criteria for use, only capability boundaries such as not connecting accounts or executing the workflow.

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

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior. The description adds useful operational detail beyond annotations: default automatable share and working weeks, conditional payback calculation, returned metrics, and a disclaimer that results are planning estimates rather than guaranteed savings or financial advice.

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 front-loaded with purpose, then covers required inputs, defaults, conditional payback, and output/disclaimer in a compact paragraph. It is appropriately sized for a six-parameter calculator, though slightly dense in places.

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 rich annotations, full schema coverage, and presence of an output schema, the description is complete enough for correct invocation. It covers required inputs, defaults, conditional behavior, return summary, and caveats without needing to explain every output field.

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%, so the schema already documents parameter meanings, defaults, ranges, and currency requirements. The description restates required parameters and default behavior but adds little semantic detail beyond the structured schema.

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 states a specific verb and resource: estimating reclaimable team capacity and an illustrative payback period from caller-supplied workload figures. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with the sibling prioritize_automation_workflows tool.

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 specifies required inputs and conditions for output: people, weekly hours per person, and loaded hourly cost are required, while payback is calculated only when implementation cost is supplied. It gives clear invocation context but does not state when to choose this over the sibling tool or when not to use it.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: it enumerates what is returned (per-workflow score, recommendation, human-review flag, rationale, plus a recommended first workflow and guardrails) and explicitly states it does not connect to or change any system.

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?

Three dense, front-loaded sentences that proceed purpose → required inputs → outputs/side effects. Every sentence carries information; the closing no-side-effects sentence is partly redundant with the annotations but serves as a useful explicit disclaimer.

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 single-parameter analytical tool with an output schema, an agent needs to know the required inputs, the scoring basis, the returned fields, and that nothing is mutated. All four are present, so nothing needed to invoke it correctly is missing.

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%, so the description must carry the parameter burden, and it does: it names all seven required per-workflow fields (name, weekly hours, predictability, judgment required, error cost, data sensitivity, system count) and the 1-12 batch size. It does not explain the low/medium/high enum semantics or the numeric bounds, which is why it is not a 5.

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 (ranks) plus resource (caller-described workflows), the 1-12 range, the scoring dimensions, and the three output labels. It is clear what the tool does, but it never names or contrasts with its only sibling estimate_automation_roi, so an agent must guess which of the two to pick.

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 context is implied by the framing: you supply your own workflows with attributes and get back a prioritization. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusions, and no routing to estimate_automation_roi, which is the obvious alternative for cost/benefit questions.

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