plan_next_actions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that actions require approval, but it does not describe side effects, whether the tool persists data, or the nature of 'evidence-backed' planning. Given the lack of annotations, this is a significant transparency gap.

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 sentence and is technically concise, but it is under-specified. It leaves out important contextual details, making it closer to minimal than appropriately sized for a tool with multiple parameters and an output schema.

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 tool's complexity (two parameters, no annotations, an output schema), the description is too sparse. It does not mention the workflow context, what constitutes an 'action', or how the approval requirement affects invocation. The output schema exists but the description doesn't help pre-contextualize 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no information about the parameters (workflowId, principalId). It does not explain their purpose, syntax, or relationship, leaving the agent without any guidance beyond the schema's basic type and required flags.

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 a specific verb 'plan' and identifies the resource as 'actions', clearly distinguishing this from execution-focused siblings like 'execute_action' and 'rollback_action'. It conveys the core purpose, though 'actions' is somewhat generic and it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools.

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 'require approval before execution' implies this tool is for pre-execution planning, offering clear context for when it should be used. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools like 'simulate_resolution' or 'execute_action', so guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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