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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It clearly states the tool does not execute the command, which is a key behavioral guarantee, but it does not describe potential side effects, whether it is fully read-only, or what kind of plan output is returned.

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 a single, focused sentence with no filler. It efficiently communicates the tool's purpose and a critical constraint (no execution), making it easy to parse.

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 simplicity of the tool and full schema coverage, the description is adequate but sparse. It does not mention what the plan output looks like, whether results are returned, or how this relates to approval workflows, which could matter for an agent deciding whether to call it.

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?

The schema already documents both parameters with descriptions, so the description adds little beyond what is in the schema. The 'args' parameter is clear as command arguments, and 'allowWrites' is explained in the schema; the description does not need to repeat them.

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 verb 'classify and plan' and the specific resource 'Huawei Cloud hcloud command', and explicitly notes it does not execute the command. This distinguishes it from execution-focused sibling tools, though 'classify' is somewhat vague.

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 phrase 'without executing it' implies use for planning or classification before actual execution, but it does not explicitly say when to prefer this tool over siblings like run_readonly_command or run_approved_command. More direct guidance on when to choose this tool would improve clarity.

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