forgepilot_backend_switch_plan

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does add one valuable behavioral fact — 'Read-only' — implying no mutation occurs. It does not disclose what the plan contains, whether it can be applied by another tool, or any auth/prerequisite conditions.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and closed with the safety trait. Efficient, though the internal jargon slightly muddies an otherwise clean statement.

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?

For a single-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description adequately conveys purpose and safety but leaves the sole parameter undefined and gives no sense of what the plan output looks like or how it differs from sibling planning tools.

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?

There is one parameter ('profile') with 0% schema description coverage, and the description never explains what the profile refers to, its expected values, or its effect on the returned plan. With no annotations or schema text, this gap is unmitigated.

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 states a specific verb (show) and resource (a backend/provider switch plan for Claude Code), and the 'plan' framing partially distinguishes it from sibling generator tools. However, it names no sibling explicitly and leans on jargon ('adk/awsettings') an agent may not resolve.

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?

Usage is implied: use this when you need a preview of switching providers. But it never says when to prefer it over forgepilot_generate_config or forgepilot_local_acceleration_plan, nor whether a profile argument is required to get a meaningful result.

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