Plan or collect local context

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful context beyond them: execution is gated behind two flags, probes are allowlisted, and output is subject to strict redaction. It stops short of describing what a plan response contains versus an execution response.

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 short sentences, no filler, with the plan-vs-execute distinction front-loaded and the execution precondition second. It is efficient, though the extreme terseness leaves too much implicit for a five-parameter tool.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. Still, a tool with a plan/execute duality, a platform enum, and a control_ids array referencing a sibling catalog should say more about plan output and parameter roles than it does.

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% across 5 parameters, so the description must carry the burden. It clarifies execute and consent as execution gates, but platform (an enum), control_ids, and include_output are completely unexplained, leaving three of five parameters undocumented anywhere.

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 gives a verb pair (plan/execute) and a resource (allowlisted read-only probes), so the general function is inferable, but 'probes' is undefined and the reader cannot tell what is actually collected. It also does not distinguish this from siblings like plan_setup, inspect_setup, or diagnose, which occupy adjacent territory.

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 gating condition 'Execution requires execute=true and consent=true' is genuine usage guidance, and 'plan or explicitly execute' implies a safe default of planning only. However, there is no guidance on when to choose this tool over plan_setup, inspect_setup, or diagnose, so the routing decision is left to inference.

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