pws_plan_show

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

With annotations already declaring readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, the description adds value by reinforcing the 'dry-run' nature and the explicit guarantee 'This never changes the save.' It also reveals that the tool uses roster ranking, alignment, and other factors, giving a sense of what the agent can expect. No contradiction with annotations.

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 two sentences with no fluff. Every word earns its place: the first sentence states what the tool does, and the second provides a critical safety guarantee. Well-structured and appropriately sized.

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?

The tool is complex (9 optional parameters, no output schema), and while it mentions the core purpose, it does not describe the return format or what a 'card' contains beyond the listed factors. The annotations help clarify safety, and the description gives enough to understand the core action, but given the lack of an output schema and the breadth of options, more guidance on expected output or parameter relationships would improve completeness.

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 very low (11%), with 9 parameters and none described in detail. The description mentions high-level concepts like 'roster ranking' and 'runtime' but does not map them to specific parameters such as showId, minutes, matchCount, or avoidContractIds. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema-level parameter documentation.

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 clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb ('Generate') and resource ('complete dry-run card'), and lists the inputs considered. It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly noting this is a dry-run that never changes the save, setting it apart from apply_show_plan and validate_show_plan.

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 the tool: for generating a dry-run plan without modifying anything. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the 'never changes the save' clause strongly signals that this is for previewing, not finalizing, and sibling names like apply_show_plan reinforce that. Clear context but no explicit 'use this instead of X' guidance.

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