plan_proactive_agent_eval_guardrails

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, signaling a non-destructive operation. The description adds context by specifying the nature of the mapping and the types of gates, which goes beyond the annotation. No contradictions are present.

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 of 17 words, front-loaded with the verb 'Map'. Every word is meaningful and there is no redundancy or filler.

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 no output schema and 14 parameters, the description fails to explain what the tool returns or how the mapping is represented. For a complex analysis tool, this is a significant gap, making the description incomplete for an agent to understand the full behavior.

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 each parameter is already documented. The description does not elaborate on parameters beyond the schema, providing no additional semantic value. 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 a specific verb 'Map' and clearly identifies the resource ('proactive-assistant eval gaps') and the target ('PARE-style state-machine, active-user-simulation, goal-inference, intervention-timing, and multi-app orchestration gates'). It distinguishes this tool from siblings that focus on other domains like governance, ads, or retrieval.

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 implies the tool is for proactive assistant evaluation gaps but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives. No exclusions or conditions are provided, leaving the agent to infer context from the name and sibling tools.

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