plan_devops

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It is transparent about the topics the DevOps strategy covers, but it does not disclose whether the tool returns a plan artifact, how it uses project_type/scale, or any side effects. The gap is moderate because this is a planning, non-mutating tool.

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 with no filler: the main intent appears first, and the six comma-separated topics are compact and information-dense. Every phrase earns its place.

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?

With three fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description is mostly complete for a straightforward planning tool. However, it does not state the output/deliverable format or scope boundaries (e.g., that cost estimation is left to estimate_infrastructure), which would help an agent invoke it correctly without annotations.

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 100%, so the baseline of 3 applies; project_type, scale, and features are already explained in the schema. The description's domain list only loosely connects to parameter usage and does not add value mapping, format hints, or constraints beyond the 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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Plan DevOps strategy') and then enumerates six concrete domains (CI/CD, monitoring, alerting, disaster recovery, environment setup, secret management). This is clearly differentiated from sibling planning tools like plan_testing and plan_monetization.

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 opening phrase provides clear context: use this tool when a DevOps strategy or DevOps plan is requested, covering the listed operational areas. It doesn't explicitly exclude alternatives or name when plan_testing/plan_monetization should be used instead, so it falls short of a 5.

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