plan_vander_checks

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it discloses that it 'Sends nothing' and is 'derived deterministically', which are genuine non-side-effect traits. However, it omits permission/auth needs and does not describe the resulting artifact beyond id prefixes, leaving meaningful behavioral gaps for a zero-annotation tool.

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, front-loaded with the core action and acronym expansion before the mode caveats. There is little waste, though the mode sentence is somewhat cryptic and could be tightened.

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 no annotations, the description does explain the return artifact (checklist with axis-prefixed ids) and the no-send behavior. It is largely sufficient for an agent to call the tool, with only the undocumented-in-schema mode reference as a loose end.

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 coverage is 75%, so the schema already documents axes, definitionRelativePath, and workspaceRoot, making 3 the baseline. The description adds the V-/A- id-prefix mapping for axes but introduces a `mode` field that does not exist in the input schema, so its added parameter value is partly misaligned.

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 and resource: 'Build the VANDER checklist ... for one requestId', and expands the acronym so the agent knows exactly what artifact results. It also names the sibling run_vander_checks as the executor, giving partial differentiation. It stops short of fully contrasting the planning role against the execution role.

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 mode vocabulary (auto/destructive/manual) implies when the checklist is a plan versus an action, and 'run_vander_checks executes it' hints at the plan-then-execute split. But there is no explicit 'use this before run_vander_checks' instruction or exclusion of alternatives, so usage must be inferred.

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