tf_plan

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It states that it runs init+plan and returns a summary, but it does not explicitly say whether it modifies any state, requires authentication, or is read-only. An agent might assume it applies changes because it says 'runs'—though plan is typically safe, this is not clarified. The description lacks critical side-effect disclosure.

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 that front-loads the action and output. Every word earns its place with no wasted verbiage. It is appropriately concise for a single-purpose tool.

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 tool's low complexity (one parameter) but no annotations, no output schema, and no parameter explanation, the description is incomplete. An agent lacks information about when to use it, what the change summary looks like in detail, and any prerequisites. The description covers the core action but omits essential usage and behavioral context.

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 only parameter is workspaceId, and its schema gives a pattern but no semantic meaning. The description does not mention or explain workspaceId at all. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate, but it fails to clarify what workspaceId refers to or how it is used. This leaves the agent to guess the parameter's purpose.

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 a specific action ('Runs terraform init+plan') and a concrete output ('returns a resource-level change summary'). This clearly differentiates it from siblings like tf_apply (which applies changes) and tf_cost_estimate (which estimates cost). The verb and resource are explicit.

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 this tool is for planning Terraform changes (init+plan) and producing a change summary, which logically precedes tf_apply. However, it does not explicitly state when to use it versus tf_cost_estimate or tf_policy_check, nor does it mention prerequisites like workspace initialization. The guidance is implied rather than stated.

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