get_trust_boundary_detection_plan

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It clearly signals a read-only behavior through 'Get' and 'returns,' and discloses that the output is markdown-formatted with AI-powered analysis prompts. It also mentions the ctx argument for logging/error handling, but does not discuss any potential side effects or resource implications beyond that.

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 well-structured with a short overview, a detailed paragraph, and explicit Args/Returns sections. The first sentence is somewhat redundant with the tool name, but the overall length is appropriate and the information is presented clearly without wasted words.

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?

For a zero-parameter tool, the description covers its purpose and return format sufficiently. However, the presence of a closely-named sibling 'get_trust_boundary_analysis_plan' creates ambiguity, and the description does not explain how this tool differs from that one or when each should be used, leaving the overall context incomplete.

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 has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds extra context for the 'ctx' argument, explaining it is for logging and error handling, which is not represented in the schema. This is helpful, though there are no user-facing parameters to elaborate on.

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 gets a 'comprehensive trust boundary detection plan' and explains it returns a detailed plan for detecting trust boundaries from architecture components using AI-powered analysis. It is specific about the resource and action, though it does not explicitly contrast with the similarly named sibling tool 'get_trust_boundary_analysis_plan'.

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 implies usage when one needs a plan for trust boundary detection, and mentions 'using AI-powered analysis with step-by-step prompts and guidance.' However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any when-not conditions or provide direct comparison with the many sibling plan tools.

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