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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the transparency burden. It discloses that no content is loaded, no model is called, and outlines the decisions made (units, order, skip, federation, budget). This provides clear behavioral expectations.

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 extremely concise—two sentences that efficiently convey purpose and behavioral constraints. Every part adds value; no waste.

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 high complexity (17 parameters) and no output schema or annotations, the description covers the core behavior well. It lacks explicit guidance on error scenarios or output format, but the stated output ('inspectable load plan') and safety notes are adequate.

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 all 17 parameters. The description does not add parameter-specific details beyond the schema, but this is acceptable given full schema coverage. Baseline 3 applies.

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 specific verbs ('Produce a deterministic, inspectable load plan') and identifies the resource ('task against a KCP knowledge.yaml'). It explicitly distinguishes from siblings by stating 'No content is loaded and no model is called,' which contrasts with kcp_load and other siblings.

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 clearly implies when to use: to obtain a plan before loading. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or provide direct comparisons to siblings, though the 'No content is loaded' line helps differentiate.

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