Plan Context Footprint

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals a safe read operation, and the description adds behavioral context about what the tool reports (savings and recommendations). No contradictions with annotations. However, details about how the estimate is computed or what 'proof-preserving' entails are absent, so the description doesn't fully disclose behavior.

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 sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Estimate footprint') and lists key outputs. It is compact with no filler, though the density of specialized terms makes it less immediately readable than a plainer rewrite. Still, every word earns its place.

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 9 parameters, a nested object, and no output schema, the description is brief. It names the three report types (progressive-discovery savings, context compaction savings, proof-preserving recommendations) but does not explain their format or relationship to the parameters. The readOnly annotation and full schema coverage mitigate the gap, making it minimally viable but not comprehensive.

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%, with each parameter having a descriptive explanation (e.g., targetReduction default, matryoshkaOptions constraints). The description itself adds no parameter-level details, but with full schema coverage, the baseline 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 a specific verb ('estimate') and identifies the resource ('MCP schema and feedback-context footprint'), distinguishing it from sibling planning tools like plan_multimodal_retrieval by focusing on context footprint rather than retrieval or readiness. However, terms like 'progressive-discovery savings' and 'proof-preserving recommendations' are jargon-heavy and not fully defined, slightly reducing clarity.

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 states when to use the tool: 'before loading large manifests into an agent prompt,' which is a clear situational trigger. It does not name alternatives or when-not-to-use scenarios, but the sibling tools suggest this is a planning/estimation aid rather than an execution tool. This meets the 'clear context, no exclusions' bar.

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