plan_agent_design_governance

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

The description describes a read-only evaluation and recommendation process, consistent with the readOnlyHint annotation. It adds context about what the tool produces (recommendations) without disclosing specifics, but the annotation lowers the burden.

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 two sentences with no redundant words. Every part adds value: the action, the timing, and the outputs.

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 15 parameters and no output schema, the description is brief. It omits how recommendations are delivered (e.g., structured output, text) and any success/failure conditions. More detail on the output format would improve completeness.

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?

All 15 parameters have schema descriptions (100% coverage). The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 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 uses specific verbs ('Evaluate', 'Recommends') and clearly identifies the resource (agent workflow design governance). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'set_branch_governance' by focusing on pre-implementation evaluation.

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 states when to use the tool: 'before adding tools, autonomy, or subagents'. This provides clear context but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives.

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