it_ops_plan_iac

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions the dispatcher and scope but omits side effects, required permissions, error behavior, or whether the action is synchronous or asynchronous. The existence of an output schema is not leveraged to explain return values.

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 short and front-loaded with the purpose. No redundant information. However, it could pack more useful details without increasing length significantly.

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 tool has an output schema, so return values are covered elsewhere. But for planning IaC, the description lacks context on what constitutes a plan, how to interpret results, or any prerequisites. Combined with no annotations, it leaves significant gaps.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds that 'message' is a free-text objective and 'inputs' is an optional JSON string. However, it does not specify expected structure or constraints, adding minimal value beyond the schema's defaults.

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 states the specific action 'plan_iac' and its routing mechanism. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like it_ops_plan_iteration or it_ops_plan_domain_intelligence, and the verb 'Run' is generic.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., it_ops_generate_iac). No explicit context or exclusions. The description only explains internal routing, not usage scenarios.

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