bourne_site_candidates

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

Annotations only mark readOnly/openWorld/idempotent/destructive hints as false, which is minimal. The description adds important behavior beyond them: the tool does not execute or durably persist a request/plan, stores an ephemeral candidate session in the MCP process, and loses that session on restart. That is valuable context the annotations alone do not provide.

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?

Three dense sentences: the first states the tool's purpose and inputs, the second gives pipeline placement and the sibling alternative, and the third discloses persistence/restart effects. Everything earns its place with no 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?

The description covers what the tool does, when to use it, when not to use it, and the key side-effect of ephemerality. An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not required. The only conceptually risky areas (durable persistence, execution) are explicitly addressed.

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 all four parameters already have documented meaning in the input schema: reference, request, inventory_reference, and provider. The tool description does not add new per-parameter semantics, but it does clarify the overall role of provider constraints and the default inventory flow, which is reasonable given the schema already carries the detail.

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?

States a specific verb ('Generate'), an explicit resource ('candidate plans for one configured site'), a bound ('at most 64'), and the key inputs. It also distinguishes itself from bourne_plan by calling out site-aware candidate comparison, so an agent can tell sibling tools apart.

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?

Explicitly says when to use it ('after site discovery and before bourne_site_select') and names the alternative ('use bourne_plan when site-aware candidate comparison is unnecessary'). This gives clear selection logic relative to siblings.

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