Plan a maxplus2 run

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds genuine value by clarifying that the output is the constructed command line itself, not side effects. It doesn't mention validation errors or what the returned plan looks like, but annotations carry most of the burden here.

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?

A single efficient sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, and the key non-execution constraint is stated immediately. No waste, though the very terse style leaves no room for additional orientation that a 28-param tool might benefit from.

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?

With 28 parameters, no output schema, and a sibling apply/run tool, the description covers the core non-execution behavior but says nothing about what the returned plan is, whether it validates inputs, or how it relates to maxplus2_run/setacf_plan/job_status in a workflow. Adequate given full schema coverage and annotations, but thin for a tool of this complexity.

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 100%, so the schema does the heavy lifting and baseline is 3. The description's explicit framing of the mode categories (compile / timing analysis / simulation / object conversion) helps an agent mentally group the 28 parameters, adding real orientation value beyond the flat 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?

States a specific verb (build the command line), resource (maxplus2.exe), and critically distinguishes itself from the sibling maxplus2_run by emphasizing 'WITHOUT running it.' That is exactly the distinction an agent needs to choose between plan and 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 makes the plan-vs-execute distinction clear through the phrase 'WITHOUT running it,' and the sibling maxplus2_run is implied as the alternative. It doesn't explicitly name maxplus2_run nor lay out when planning is preferred over direct execution, so it falls short of a 5.

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