infer_codegen_plan_tool

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It describes the inference operation but does not disclose whether it is read-only, side-effect-free, or requires authentication/permissions. The title is null, missing an opportunity to convey behavior.

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, achieving conciseness but sacrificing detail. It is front-loaded with the core purpose. However, it could be more structured, e.g., listing inputs and outputs.

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?

Given the presence of sibling tools and the output schema (unknown content), the description is insufficient. It does not explain how the inference relates to code generation workflow, what the output contains, or prerequisites like workspace config being loaded.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must explain parameters. It mentions 'workspace configuration' but does not describe 'table_name' or 'workspace_root' explicitly. The parameter 'workspace_root' has a default null but no guidance on its role.

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 uses a specific verb 'infer' and lists the outputs (module, business name, entity name, generation target). It is clear about the tool's function and distinguishes it from siblings like 'generate_codegen_sql_tool' or 'inspect_table_schema_tool'.

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 usage guidelines are provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool vs alternatives such as 'inspect_table_schema_tool' or when not to use it. Implicitly, it is for inferring plan details, but no explicit guidance.

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