plasticity_reconcile

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely non-annotation context about the timeout/disconnect recovery scenario, but the phrase 'allow later mutations' is mildly confusing for a read-only tool and no return behavior is described.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence leading with the scenario ('after a timeout or disconnect') and the effect. It is tight, though the trailing clause about not retrying the uncertain command reads slightly awkwardly.

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?

For a zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description should make the post-call state clear. It explains the scenario but not what 'reading' yields or how the agent should proceed afterward, leaving a modest gap.

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 tool takes no parameters, so per the baseline there is nothing for the description to compensate for; schema coverage is 100% on an empty object. No parameter-level ambiguity exists.

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 conveys a specific operation: reading the document after a timeout or disconnect to reconcile uncertain state so later mutations can proceed without retrying. It is more than a restatement of the name, though the exact mechanism (what 'reconcile' does beyond reading) stays somewhat abstract.

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?

It clearly states the triggering condition (after a timeout or disconnect) and the intended effect (later mutations without retrying the uncertain command), which tells an agent when to reach for it. It does not, however, name any alternative recovery approach or exclusion.

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