aureon_get_restore_plan

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies the plan is merely 'proposed' (non-mutating), but never states whether it is computed on demand or cached, whether any state changes, or what freshness/limits apply.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence naming the resource first, then its content. No filler, though the terseness contributes to the gaps noted elsewhere.

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?

No output schema and no annotations mean the description should explain the shape and nature of the returned plan, but it gives only a one-line gloss. For a plan-retrieval tool sitting among several restoration-related siblings, an agent lacks enough to confidently choose it.

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?

Single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents objectiveId. The description adds no field-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, which is the baseline-3 case.

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 concrete resource (restore plan for an objective) and clarifies its content as 'proposed rebalance steps to return to policy', so the agent knows what it retrieves. It does not differentiate from near-neighbours like aureon_propose_restoration or aureon_get_drift_restore_flow, which keeps it short of a 5.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as aureon_propose_restoration (which presumably creates a plan) or aureon_restore_objective (which applies one). The agent must infer the read-only retrieval role from the name alone.

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