apizr_plan_exposure

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value by enumerating the specific actions it will not take (generate, execute, modify configuration, publish), which concretely confirms the plan is advisory only and never applied.

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, purpose front-loaded, and the negative-scope clause placed immediately after so the read-only nature is unmissable. No filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be described, and annotations cover safety. However, for a tool whose core input is a structured policy document, the total absence of guidance on how to build or pass that policy leaves a material gap for an agent.

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 never mentions either parameter. The `policy` object carries a non-trivial nested structure (interfaces, execution.allowed/require, selection, eligibility) and `expected_repository_digest` is a 64-hex pin; neither is explained anywhere, so the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: "Propose an explicit exposure plan for the startup project." An agent knows this produces a plan rather than applying one, but nothing in the text distinguishes it from siblings apizr_analyze or apizr_readiness.

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 rather than stated: the second sentence ("Does not generate, execute, modify configuration or publish anything") signals this is a dry-run/preview step to be used before generating or publishing. No explicit when-to-use condition and no alternatives are named.

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