plan_od_rough_finish

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond that by explicitly calling the output 'non-executable,' clarifying that this tool produces a plan rather than performing machining operations. It also states the plan is 'grounded in supplied profile, tooling, material, and machine limits,' which conveys constraint-respecting 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 a single sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the core function ('Create a non-executable rough-plus-finish OD turning plan') and adds the scoping constraints in the same sentence. Every phrase contributes to the meaning.

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 complex tool with 10 parameters, 7 required fields, nested objects, and zero schema description coverage, this description is under-specified. The output schema may document return values, but the description does not explain parameter roles, usage context, or how to distinguish this planning tool from other planning tools. An agent would still need substantial inference to call it correctly.

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 carries the full burden of explaining parameter meaning, but it does not. It mentions 'profile, tooling, material, and machine limits,' which maps to profile, tools, material, and machine, but leaves required parameters like intent, units, stockDiameter, and finishAllowanceRadial, plus optional roughDepthRadial and topKTools, unexplained. The high-level grounding phrase is helpful but not sufficient for correct invocation of a 10-parameter tool.

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 a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('non-executable rough-plus-finish OD turning plan'), making the tool's function unmistakable. The qualifier 'non-executable' distinguishes it from siblings like generate_operation_packet and mastercam_plan, which imply executable or broader planning behavior. The grounding in 'profile, tooling, material, and machine limits' adds useful scoping.

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 when to use it: when the caller supplies profile, tooling, material, and machine limits along with an intent to create a rough-plus-finish OD turning plan. However, there is no explicit guidance on when not to use it, no named alternatives, and no decision criteria separating it from planning siblings such as mastercam_plan or generate_operation_packet.

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