validate_plan

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It only states it validates a plan, but does not disclose what validation entails (e.g., error checking, schema validation, or semantic checks) or any side effects. The disclaimer is helpful but insufficient.

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 with two sentences. It front-loads the disclaimer which is important. Could be slightly more efficient by making the function statement more prominent, but overall it is compact.

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?

Given the simple input schema and no output schema or annotations, the description should provide more context about what validation results look like, how to interpret them, or prerequisites. Currently it leaves the agent guessing about return value and edge cases.

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% and the 'plan' parameter is untyped. The description adds meaning by mentioning 'plan JSON (or the current session plan)', clarifying that the parameter accepts JSON text or defaults to the session plan. This provides some context beyond the minimal schema.

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 states the tool's action ('Validate plan JSON (or the current session plan)') and verb ('validate') on a specific resource ('plan'). It distinguishes from sibling tools which focus on building, comparing, or scenario analysis, but the heavy disclaimer somewhat dilutes the purpose.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'build_plan' or 'run_projection'. The disclaimer about non-advice is a limitation but not usage context.

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