plan_workflow

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context beyond annotations: a tier gate, orchestrator API path, authority endpoint, and the explicit 'Does not execute steps' behavior. It still does not describe return values or tier-gate failure behavior.

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 compact and includes a clear non-execution constraint. The leading bracketed capability/tier/API/authority metadata is dense and front-loads implementation details before the actual purpose, which slightly reduces readability.

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 definition covers the tier gate and non-execution behavior, and annotations cover safety. But with no output schema and no explanation of what the quality gate returns or what the agent should expect after planning, important context is still missing.

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%, so the description must compensate. It only clarifies that a named workflow is required, which maps to workflowId; agentAddress and installedSkills are not explained at all. This leaves two of three parameters semantically undocumented.

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 names a specific verb and resource: 'Build a Trail Marshal quality gate for a named workflow.' The final clause, 'Does not execute steps,' distinguishes it from execution-oriented siblings like run_workflow, though the proprietary term 'Trail Marshal quality gate' adds some ambiguity.

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 as a planning/gating step by saying it builds a quality gate and explicitly excludes execution. However, it does not name alternatives such as run_workflow or explain when to choose this tool over them, leaving the agent to infer the routing decision.

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