generate_purple_team_plan

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

With no annotations, the description is responsible for behavioral disclosure. It only states the tool generates plans but does not mention side effects, permissions needed, return behavior, or whether it is read-only or destructive. This is insufficient.

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 a single sentence that efficiently communicates the tool's purpose and key options. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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?

The description lacks information about return values or output format. Since there is no output schema, the agent does not know what the plan looks like (e.g., text, structured data). Additionally, no behavioral context is given beyond generation.

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 100% coverage, so baseline is 3. The description adds context by listing the exercise types that map to the 'mode' enum, but provides no additional meaning for 'objectives' or 'environment_id' beyond what the schema already states.

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 generates purple team exercise plans and lists the specific modes: red_team plan, blue team detection, validation steps, and combined exercise. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like build_attack_plan or simulate_adversary by focusing on purple team collaboration.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool over alternatives such as build_attack_plan or assess_detection_gaps. The description does not include prerequisites, exclusions, or context for choosing this tool.

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