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

The description adds the trait 'deterministic' and specifies the target agents, but it does not clarify that the tool only generates a plan and does not apply changes. The readOnlyHint annotation already covers safety, so the description's contribution is minimal beyond that.

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, front-loaded sentence that effectively communicates the core function. The 'Agent Sprawl Radar' prefix adds context without significant bloat, and every word serves a purpose.

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 lack of an output schema, the description should clarify what a 'remediation plan' looks like (e.g., list of steps, severity levels). It also does not mention related tools or prerequisites, such as needing a drift report or risk assessment first. The description is too sparse for a tool that generates actionable outputs.

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 has one parameter (agent_id) with 0% description coverage, and the tool description does not mention this parameter at all. The description offers no meaning, format, or context for agent_id, leaving the agent to guess from the schema's type and required status alone.

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 tool generates deterministic remediation steps for risky or drifting agents, using a specific verb (generate) and target resource. This distinguishes it from siblings like explain_agent_risk or get_drift_report, which analyze rather than produce actionable steps.

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 implies the tool is used when remediation steps are needed for risky or drifting agents, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives like explain_agent_risk or get_drift_report. No exclusions or direct comparisons are provided, leaving the usage context to be inferred.

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