it_ops_plan_iac

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

The description does not disclose side effects, return values, or whether the action is read-only or destructive. Although annotations indicate destructiveHint and readOnlyHint=false, the description itself gives no behavioral detail, leaving the agent unaware of potential consequences.

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 concise and well-structured, with a clear verb, a named action, and compact parameter explanations. No redundant or irrelevant content is present.

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 description omits important contextual details such as output schema, return format, error behavior, prerequisites, and any interaction with the underlying IaC system. While the tool does have an output schema, it is not described here, leaving the agent with insufficient context to fully understand the tool's contract.

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?

The description provides brief explanations for both parameters: `message` as a free-text objective and `inputs` as an optional JSON string of structured inputs. This adds some meaning beyond the bare parameter names, but it remains high-level and does not specify expected content, constraints, or examples, especially for the `inputs` JSON.

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 identifies the tool as running the it_ops domain agent action `plan_iac`, which distinguishes it from sibling tools. However, it does not explain what plan_iac actually does or the nature of the resource it operates on, leaving some ambiguity about its intended effect.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives, what scenarios it is appropriate for, or whether it should be preferred over similar actions. The description only states generic routing information about JWT, tenant, and company scope, which offers no practical usage direction.

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