dr_generate_plan

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Generate a comprehensive disaster recovery plan document' without explaining how output is returned, whether it persists anything, what format the document takes, or whether it requires an API key despite that being an input parameter.

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 with no wasted words, and the core action is positioned first. It is appropriately sized for the tool's apparent simplicity, even if the word 'comprehensive' is vague.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and five parameters, the description leaves significant gaps: what the generated document contains, what format it is in, how it is delivered, and how required inputs like rto_minutes and rpo_minutes relate to the output. Sibling DR tools are not referenced, leaving the agent with an under-specified call.

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 100%, so the parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond the schema, which meets the baseline of 3 but does not exceed it.

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?

States a specific verb ('Generate') and resource ('disaster recovery plan document'), which makes the core function clear. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like dr_assess_risks or dr_create_runbooks, but the resource scope is reasonably distinct.

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 given about when to use this tool versus related DR tools such as dr_assess_risks or dr_create_runbooks. The description implies only that it produces a DR plan document, with no context, prerequisites, or exclusion criteria.

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