List Planes

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

Annotations already disclose readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering safety profile. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it explains that molcrafts is always on and only provider planes can be dropped, which informs the agent about data invariants. No contradiction with annotations; the added context is relevant and useful.

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 brief and front-loaded with the purpose. The first sentence states what it does; the second explains row structure and a key rule. Every sentence contributes to understanding, with no wasted words.

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?

For a no-parameter list tool with an output schema (not shown), the description provides sufficient context: it enumerates the fields of each row and clarifies the distinction between core and provider planes. An agent can call this tool without ambiguity about inputs or expected outputs.

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?

With zero parameters, the baseline is 4 per the rubric. The description doesn't need to explain parameters; however, it does describe the output fields, which indirectly clarifies what the tool returns. No compensation needed for missing parameter info.

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 clearly states the tool lists 'the core connection and optional provider planes' with a distinct resource and scope. It differentiates from siblings by specifying the exact content, and the name 'list_planes' aligns with the purpose without tautology.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any sibling tools, conditions for substitution, or context that would help an agent decide between list_planes and other operations. The information given is purely descriptive, lacking explicit usage or exclusion criteria.

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