timps_terraform_plan_reviewer

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool can run terraform plan if plan_text is omitted, and that it requires approval for high-risk plans. However, it doesn't detail what happens after review (e.g., does it block apply? does it return a risk assessment?), or any side effects like running terraform plan in the repo.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and adds the key behavioral note about approval. It's efficient with no fluff, though it could be slightly more structured with explicit parameter guidance.

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 complexity (reviewing terraform plans, potentially running plan, gating apply), the description is adequate but not complete. It doesn't explain the output format (e.g., risk assessment, approval mechanism), nor does it clarify what 'high-risk' means or how the approval flow works. With no output schema and no annotations, more detail would be expected.

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 50%: plan_text has a description, but repo_path has none. The description adds context that plan_text is optional and will run terraform plan if omitted, which is helpful. However, repo_path is left unexplained—the agent must infer it's the path to the terraform repo, which is a gap given the low coverage.

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 reviews terraform plan output for destructive changes, which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes itself from siblings like timps_iac_drift_detector and timps_pr_reviewer by focusing on destructive change review and approval gating.

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 usage when reviewing terraform plans for destructive changes, and mentions 'requires explicit approval before allowing apply on high-risk plans,' which gives some context. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools for non-destructive plan reviews.

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