plan_policy_iteration

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden but reveals no behavioral traits (e.g., side effects, permissions, rate limits). The verb 'plan' implies a non-destructive operation, but this is not confirmed, and no additional context is given.

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 extremely concise—one sentence with no filler. It front-loads the purpose and resource, making it quick to parse. Every word adds value.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description fails to provide parameter context for the 8-parameter schema. With 0% schema coverage, the agent must guess parameter meanings, leading to likely incorrect invocations.

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% (no parameter descriptions in the schema), and the description does not mention any parameters. The agent receives no guidance on parameter semantics, leaving all 8 parameters (including 'task' and optional ones) undefined.

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 clearly states the action ('plan') and specific resource ('preview-gated policy iteration'), sourced from 'concrete review feedback'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'plan_augmentation_policy' or 'plan_preview_review' by specifying the iteration context.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without context for tool selection.

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