get_fix_plan

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world), so the bar is lower. The description adds real behavioral value by disclosing that it reports plainly when a device did not resolve or coverage is partial, which the annotations cannot convey.

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?

Purpose and returned content are front-loaded before the input guidance and privacy constraints. Two dense sentences, each carrying load, with no redundant 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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-shape burden and does so by naming the fix groups and the two plan steps. Combined with annotations covering safety and a single well-documented parameter, this is nearly complete; only the when-to-use routing remains thin.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning on top by stressing exact-as-inventory matching and enumerating forbidden identifiers (host names, IP/MAC, user/site names), which sharpens correct usage beyond the schema's field descriptions.

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 resource and output ('Fix plan for one device') and details what the plan contains: fix groups mapping updates to CVEs, plus the known-exploited and full-coverage steps. This clearly separates it from lookup_cve (raw CVE data) though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Gives input-matching guidance ('send vendor, product and version exactly as the inventory says') and privacy exclusions, implying how to call it. But it never states when to reach for this tool versus correlate_devices or lookup_cve, so the when-to-use decision is left to inference.

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