Plan an L1 launch

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds context about the plan's content (consensus, validators, ICM, cost, CLI commands) but does not disclose any additional behavioral traits beyond that. It does not contradict the 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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the primary purpose and lists the plan's deliverables. It wastes no words, efficiently conveying scope and sequencing without unnecessary elaboration.

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?

For a planning tool that is read-only and idempotent, the description covers the core input (use_case) and output expectations (plan contents). It does not specify the output format or error handling, but those are not critical given the annotations and the lack of an output schema. The explicit sequencing with avax_generate_genesis strengthens completeness for the intended workflow.

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 only 40%, so the description should compensate by explaining each parameter. It does not explicitly map parameters like target, needs_icm, validators, or permissioned to their meaning. It hints at permissioned via 'consensus mode (PoA/PoS)' and mentions validator count, but the description focuses on the output content rather than input semantics, leaving the agent to rely on the sparse schema.

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 states a specific action ('Produce a tailored, step-by-step launch plan') with a clear resource (a new Avalanche L1) and enumerates the key components (consensus mode, validator count, gas/token choices, precompile recommendations, ICM, cost estimate, CLI commands). It also differentiates itself from the sibling avax_generate_genesis by explicitly positioning itself as a precursor step, making its purpose unmistakable.

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 explicitly instructs 'Use before avax_generate_genesis,' providing clear sequential context. However, it does not mention when to avoid using the tool or name alternative planning-related siblings (e.g., avax_icm_recipe, avax_explain_precompile), so the guidance is not fully exhaustive.

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