scan_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 behavioral disclosure. The description mentions 'deterministic' and 'capacity-safe', which are useful behavioral traits, but it does not explain what 'capacity-safe' means, whether the plan is persisted, what side effects occur, or what the output looks like. For a tool with no annotations, this is a significant gap.

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 with no wasted words. It front-loads the key qualifiers ('deterministic', 'capacity-safe', 'risk-weighted') before the resource. However, it is arguably too terse given the lack of parameter documentation and behavioral context.

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 5 required parameters, nested objects, no output schema, and no annotations. The description provides only a high-level purpose. An agent would not know what inputs to provide, what the output format is, or what 'capacity-safe' and 'risk-weighted' mean in practice. The sibling tools are not referenced, so the agent cannot disambiguate. This is incomplete for a tool of this complexity.

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 0%, and the description provides no parameter-level detail. The schema lists five required parameters (targets, scanners, history, policy, now) with generic types (array, object, string), but the description does not explain what any of them mean or how they relate to the plan generation. With zero coverage and no compensation in the description, the agent cannot infer parameter semantics.

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 verb ('generate') and resource ('scan plan'), and adds meaningful qualifiers: 'deterministic', 'capacity-safe', 'risk-weighted'. This distinguishes it from generic 'create plan' tools, but it does not explicitly differentiate it from the sibling tools scan_analyze_coverage and scan_compare. The qualifiers hint at what the plan optimizes for, but the core purpose is somewhat abstract without more context.

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 the siblings. The description does not mention alternatives, exclusions, or conditions. The qualifiers 'deterministic', 'capacity-safe', and 'risk-weighted' imply a planning use case, but the agent is left to infer when this is appropriate compared to scan_analyze_coverage or scan_compare.

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