Galaxy Brain

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but does so minimally. It states the tool executes a plan, implying a mutation operation, but fails to describe what execution entails (e.g., whether it's irreversible, requires specific permissions, has side effects, or involves rate limits). This leaves critical behavioral traits unaddressed, making it inadequate for a tool with potential consequences.

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—a single sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core action ('Execute') and resource ('a generated action plan'), making it easy to scan. This efficiency is commendable, though it comes at the cost of detail, but for conciseness alone, it earns full marks.

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 complexity implied by 'execute' (a mutation operation) and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what happens during execution, what the output might be, or any dependencies (e.g., plans must be generated first). For a tool that could have significant effects, this leaves too many gaps for safe and effective use.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, clearly documenting both parameters (plan_id and force). The description adds no additional semantic context beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining what a 'plan ID' represents or the implications of using 'force'. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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 'Execute a generated action plan' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'execute_plan' with minimal elaboration. It specifies the verb 'execute' and resource 'action plan' but lacks detail about what execution entails or what distinguishes it from siblings like execute_batch or execute_single. This provides only basic purpose without meaningful differentiation.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a generated plan via generate_plan), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like execute_batch or execute_single. Without such context, users must infer usage from the tool name alone, which is insufficient for effective tool selection.

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