dev_prepare

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full behavioral burden. It explicitly states 'This tool NEVER executes anything -- it only plans' — a critical guarantee that prevents an agent from expecting side effects. It also discloses the output behavior (classifying each step's blast radius). This is thorough and transparent for a planning tool with zero side effects.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose and then the key behavioral caveat. Every clause adds value: scope, typical use case, and the critical non-execution guarantee. No filler, no redundancy. It is concise and well-structured for an agent to parse quickly.

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 its simplicity (one optional param, no execution), the description is almost complete. It covers what the plan includes (steps, blast radius classification) and what it never does. The output schema exists, so return details are covered implicitly. Minor omission: it doesn't specify the format or granularity of the plan, but that is not essential for invocation. Overall, an agent can confidently call this tool correctly.

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?

The schema has a single optional 'workspace' parameter with 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does not directly explain 'workspace', but the purpose 'for a repository' implies the workspace is the repository path. Since the parameter is simple, optional, and has a sensible default, the lack of explicit parameter explanation is a minor gap. This warrants a middle score.

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 states a specific verb ('Produce a preparation plan'), a specific resource ('repository'), and the scope ('align runtimes, start services, install deps, run build/test'). It also explicitly disclaims execution, which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like dev_check or dev_detect that likely run commands. The purpose is unambiguous and differentiated without needing to name siblings.

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 usage — 'for a (likely newly-cloned) repository' — and clarifies it is for planning, not execution. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over sibling tools (e.g., dev_check for actual validation, dev_services for service management). The context is present but no alternatives or exclusions are given, so guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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