Inspect a resolved runbook plan

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description doesn't need to restate those. The description adds value by explicitly stating 'without executing', which clarifies that no side effects will occur, and it lists what the tool returns (commands, plan hash, risk, approval requirement). This goes beyond the annotations, which only cover the general safety profile. The description doesn't contradict annotations; in fact, it reinforces them.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the action ('Validate variables and return the exact commands') and adds the critical constraint ('without executing'). Every word earns its place, and it's appropriately sized for the tool's complexity. There is no fluff.

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 an inspection tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential return values (commands, plan hash, risk, approval requirement) and explicitly says it doesn't execute, which is a key behavioral detail. It doesn't mention any security implications or prerequisites, but given the simplicity and annotations, it's fairly complete. The only minor gap is explaining what 'resolved' means, but it's not critical.

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 0%, but the description does not add specific detail about the parameters. The 'id' parameter is obvious, but 'variables' is only hinted at by the phrase 'Validate variables', which gives some context. However, the description doesn't explain the structure of the variables object or any constraints, which the schema already provides some info on. With 0% coverage, the description should do more to compensate, but it partially does by mentioning 'validate variables'. This is a baseline 3.

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 the verb 'validate' and 'return' to specify what the tool does, with the resource being a 'resolved runbook plan'. It clearly enumerates the outputs (commands, plan hash, risk, approval requirement) and emphasizes 'without executing', which distinguishes it from its sibling 'execute_runbook'. However, it could be more explicit about the 'inspect' nature versus 'inspect' in the name, but it's clear enough.

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 phrase 'Validate variables and return the exact commands... without executing' clearly implies this tool is for inspection, not execution, and the title 'Inspect a resolved runbook plan' sets the context. It doesn't explicitly name the sibling 'execute_runbook' as the alternative, but the 'without executing' phrase effectively communicates the distinction. It doesn't mention when to use this over 'list_runbooks', but the purpose is distinct enough.

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