md_model_gap_resolution_plan

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Plan' and 'human-reviewed remedies', but does not state whether the tool has side effects, whether it modifies state, what permissions are required, or how human review is facilitated. For a tool that likely orchestrates human review, this is a significant gap.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose. It contains no redundant words and is highly scannable.

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 tool has a required nested object (model_spec) and an optional array, plus a broader sibling tree with related tools like md_model_readiness_assess, the description is too terse. It does not clarify what constitutes a 'local' vs 'human-reviewed' remedy, how the plan is structured, or how it connects to upstream/downstream tools.

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 0% and the description does not mention either parameter (model_spec or search_roots). With two parameters including a nested object, the description offers no guidance on what values to provide or their semantics. This is a complete failure to compensate for the schema's silence.

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 'Plan' with a clear resource ('remedies for model inputs that are not yet ready'), and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like md_model_readiness_assess by focusing on the planning of remedies rather than assessment. The qualifiers 'local and human-reviewed' add precision about the nature of the remedies.

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 provides a clear usage context: when model inputs are not yet ready. It implicitly indicates that this tool is for planning remediation rather than executing it. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it falls short of the highest bar.

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