generate_change_plan

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

With no annotations provided, the description explicitly discloses the critical non-mutating behavior and indicates the output is evidence-backed, providing important safety and input context. However, it does not elaborate on other behaviors like read access patterns or the structure of the generated plan, so it is not fully transparent.

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 that is front-loaded with the core verb and resource, avoiding any filler or repetition. It is concise and easy to parse.

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?

Given the tool's simple nature and full schema coverage, the description adequately communicates the plan-generating function. The lack of an output schema and absence of details about the plan's format are minor gaps, but the core behavior is sufficiently clear for an agent to select and invoke the tool.

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?

The input schema fully describes all four parameters, so the description does not need to repeat them. The mention of 'a requested feature or change' maps to the 'request' parameter but adds no new semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides.

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 uses the specific verb 'Produces' and identifies a distinct resource ('implementation and verification plan'), clearly distinguishing this planning tool from mutating siblings like apply_script_patch and verify_change. The 'non-mutating' qualifier further sharpens the purpose.

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 usage for planning phases by calling itself 'non-mutating' and targeting 'a requested feature or change', but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool. Guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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