whodb_platform_build_plan

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

Annotations already carry readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is largely covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context by stating it 'never creates confirmation tokens,' which tells the agent this planning tool will not hand off to the confirm/pending flow that other mutating siblings use.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose before the usage trigger and behavioral notes. Minimal waste, though 'It is read-only' partially duplicates the readOnlyHint annotation.

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?

For a read-only planning tool with no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it explains scope, when to call it, its safety profile, and the phases planned. It could say more about the shape of the returned plan, but the enumerated phases largely cover what an agent needs.

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 schema already documents goal, fields, workspace, omit_files and omit_lineage. The description only restates the workspace targeting behavior ('for per-call targeting without changing defaults') that the schema already explains, and adds nothing about the fields/omit_* parameters; baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource: 'Return an end-to-end hosted platform build plan for a user goal,' and enumerates the phases (scope, ingest, persist, model, automate, runtime support, governance) it covers. It reads as clearly distinct from a bundle-import or workflow plan, though it never explicitly contrasts itself against the plan-like siblings such as whodb_platform_write_plan or whodb_platform_workflow_plan.

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?

'Use this before coordinating a cross-resource workflow' gives a concrete when-to-use trigger. No exclusions or named alternatives are provided, so the agent must infer the boundary against the other planning tools, but the positioning statement is clear.

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