linka-control-plan-action

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It only discloses non-execution, but omits behavioral traits like read-only nature, required permissions, state changes, or side effects. For a planning tool, more transparency on safety and outcome is needed.

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 extremely concise (one sentence), which is efficient, but it sacrifices clarity and completeness. It is front-loaded but does not earn its place as it lacks essential details.

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?

Given no output schema, no annotations, and minimal schema descriptions, the description is grossly incomplete. It does not cover return values, prerequisites, side effects, or typical use cases, leaving the agent with insufficient context.

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 adds no information about the three parameters (actionName, dryRun, reason). 'dryRun' and 'reason' have ambiguous semantics without further explanation, and the description fails to clarify them.

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 action is to 'plan' a 'control action' without executing it, distinguishing it from sibling tools that may involve execution or other operations. The verb 'plan' and resource 'control action' are specific, but the description lacks details on what constitutes a control action.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'linka-control-policy' or 'linka-migration'. The description implicitly suggests it's for planning before execution, but no explicit when-to or when-not-to instructions are provided.

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