mind_plan

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful output context by saying the plan lists gates and isolation needs, but it does not explain the relationship between the optional files input and plan generation.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. It delivers the core action and plan contents efficiently.

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 low-complexity read-only tool with one optional parameter, rich annotations, and no output schema, the description is mostly complete: it names the output and its key contents. A small gap remains in not clarifying how the optional files parameter shapes the generated plan.

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?

There is one optional parameter ('files') with 100% schema description coverage ('files to process'). The description does not elaborate on parameter semantics, but the schema already provides the available meaning, so a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 verb ('Generate') and resource ('verification plan for classified changes'), and adds what the plan contains ('gates and isolation needs'). It does not explicitly distinguish this tool from siblings like mind_classify or mind_route, but the purpose is clear.

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 phrase 'for classified changes' implies a precondition and therefore implied usage, but the description does not explicitly say when to use this tool instead of alternatives such as mind_classify or mind_route. No exclusions or alternative-routing guidance are provided.

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