Ask Hermes for a plan

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

Annotations already declare openWorldHint=true, and the description reinforces this by warning that Hermes may access open-world tools. It adds useful behavioral context by explaining that the tool inspects configured capabilities in plan mode and by instructing review before approving external actions. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Two focused sentences with no filler; the main purpose is front-loaded and the safety warning is directly relevant. Every sentence 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?

For a three-parameter tool with no output schema and no parameter descriptions, the description is not complete enough: an agent can call it with a prompt but has no basis for deciding whether to use preset or contextFiles. It does address the open-world risk, but the input semantics and expected response format are left unspecified.

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%, so the description must compensate for the lack of parameter documentation. It does not mention prompt, preset, or contextFiles, leaving preset and contextFiles entirely unexplained. Only 'prompt' is loosely inferable from 'Ask Hermes for a plan.'

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 'Ask Hermes to inspect its configured capabilities in plan mode,' which names a concrete verb, resource, and mode. It clearly signals a planning step rather than execution, but it does not explicitly name sibling tools such as hermes_capabilities or hermes_run, so some disambiguation is left to 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?

The description gives clear usage context: the tool operates in plan mode and the response should be reviewed before any external action. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools, so there are no exclusions.

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