cloudflare_hunting_wave_prepare

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

With no annotations, the description still discloses important behavior: deterministic ranking, bounded wave assignment, explicit deferral of untouched units, and no hunter spawning. It stops short of stating whether the tool is purely read-only, what the returned plan looks like, or how deferred units are represented.

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. Each clause contributes a distinct action or scope constraint, including the important negative scope at the end.

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 four-parameter planning tool with no annotations, no output schema, and zero schema description coverage, the description is too thin. It defines the high-level plan but omits parameter semantics and return-value expectations that an agent would need to invoke it confidently.

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 0% for four parameters, and the description only hints at 'ledger' and a 'bounded wave' for ledger and max_hunters. It says nothing about the meaning or format of changed_paths, prior_gap_ids, ledger item structure, or the max_hunters bound.

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 gives a specific role ('Phase 2 parent-side planner') and concrete actions: validate a ledger, rank planned units, assign a bounded wave, and defer untouched units. It also states a clear negative scope ('Does not spawn hunters'), which distinguishes it from a hunter-spawning phase.

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 'Phase 2 parent-side planner' framing and the explicit 'Does not spawn hunters' exclusion provide clear stage context and a key when-not condition. However, it does not name alternative sibling tools such as ledger validation or reconnaissance preparation, so the agent must infer the routing.

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