snipara_inbox_review_plan

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

Confirms read-only nature and non-destructive behavior, aligning with annotations. Adds valuable details about snapshot creation, disposition handling (needs_human items remain pending), and return structure (immutable plan, exclusions, findings). No contradictions 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 sentences efficiently cover purpose, constraints, workflow, and output. Every clause earns its place with no fluff. Front-loaded with key action and constraints.

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?

While the description explains the overall workflow and mentions return of 'immutable plan, exclusions, and validation findings', it lacks a precise specification of the return format. However, given the simple input and no output schema, it is mostly complete. A minor gap in fully detailing the return structure.

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?

Input schema has 100% description coverage on all properties. The description adds context on how the recommendations parameter is used, particularly that needs_human items are excluded from the apply snapshot, enhancing understanding beyond the schema.

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 validates evidence-backed recommendations and creates a snapshot-bound review plan. It distinguishes from siblings like snipara_inbox_review_queue and snipara_inbox_review_apply by specifying its role as a read-only planning step.

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?

Explicitly instructs to use snipara_inbox_review_queue first and never call apply without human authorization. This provides clear workflow context and when to use this tool vs alternatives.

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