sw_plan

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

Despite having no annotations, the description discloses key behavioral details: the returned questions each include a 'why' explaining how choices affect conclusions, and also_configurable only provides parameter names without expansion. It also instructs to relay the 'why' to the user. This meets the transparency burden.

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 structured with a concise purpose statement, then a parameter list, then return semantics, and a usage note. Every sentence adds value; no filler.

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 description covers the tool's purpose, all parameters, return behavior, and even when to use sw_generate instead. Combined with the output schema, the agent has all needed contextual information.

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 description explains all four parameters beyond the schema: intent with an example, preset with auto-selection behavior, overrides as user-specified parameters, and max_questions with a suggested range. This fully compensates for the 0% schema 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's function: transforming the user's simulation intent into a configuration proposal and identifying what needs confirmation. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool sw_generate by noting that if no preferences exist, sw_generate can be called directly.

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 explicitly advises that if the user has no obvious preference, one should call sw_generate directly with defaults, and sw_plan is for when confirmation questions are needed. It also explains that preset can be auto-selected if not provided.

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