execute_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 discloses that execution stops on completion, failure, or approval required, which is a key behavioral trait. However, it does not mention whether the operation is destructive, reversible, or any prerequisites like a plan must exist.

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 with no redundant information. It is front-loaded and efficient, earning its place without waste.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description lacks parameter documentation and does not mention preconditions or usage context (e.g., plan must exist). For a tool with two parameters, the description is incomplete and leaves the agent without necessary guidance.

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%, yet the description provides no explanation of the parameters (run_id and max_attempts). The description does not add any meaning beyond the schema's type and default value. This is a critical gap for an agent to correctly invoke the tool.

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?

Description clearly states the action (execute) and resource (a planned run), and specifies the termination conditions (completion, failure, or approval required). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like approve_step or rollback_run.

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 implies when to use this tool (to execute a plan until specific outcomes), but it does not provide explicit guidance on when not to use it or suggest alternatives. Siblings like approve_step and rollback_run are related but no comparisons are made.

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