plan_enforcer_tick

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

The annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds the critical context that this read-only behavior is permanent ('This tool is permanently read-only'), which goes beyond the simple hint and clarifies that even attempting a mutation via parameters like dry_run=false will be rejected. This is a valuable behavioral disclosure not fully captured by the 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?

The description is concise and front-loaded. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second sentence provides essential guidance on the tool's safety and alternatives. Every word earns its place; no redundancy or fluff.

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 the output schema exists and the input schema fully documents parameters, the description is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's role. It could be more explicit about how this differs from dry_run_plan_action, but overall it provides enough context for effective selection and invocation.

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 input schema provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all parameters, so the baseline is a 3. The description itself doesn't add additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, which is acceptable given the high 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 identifies the tool's function: 'Preview one plan-enforcement cycle.' It uses a specific verb ('preview') and resource ('plan-enforcement cycle'), which distinguishes it from mutation-oriented siblings. It also reinforces the read-only nature, further separating it from tools that apply changes.

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 explicitly says to use the tool for previewing and directs to 'the prepared plan-action workflow for reviewed mutations.' While it doesn't name a specific sibling tool, the guidance is clear enough to steer the agent away from using this for mutations. It provides clear context for when to use this tool versus the broader plan-action workflow.

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