plan_preview_review

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It only says 'plan', which is vague and does not clarify if the tool is a read or write operation, what side effects occur, or what the result means. This is insufficient for an agent to understand the tool's impact.

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 single sentence is concise but at the expense of critical information. It fails to front-load key details and wastes the opportunity to add value beyond the name.

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 tool with 6 parameters and no param descriptions, the description is severely incomplete. It does not integrate the output schema (though present) or provide enough context for correct invocation, especially given the complex sibling landscape.

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%. The description does not explain any of the 6 parameters (e.g., 'accepted', 'feedback_note', 'quality_profile'), leaving the agent without clues about their meaning or required format.

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 states a verb 'Plan' and a resource 'baseline-to-candidate preview comparison', giving a basic sense of purpose. However, it does not specify what 'planning' entails (e.g., suggesting acceptance, capturing feedback) and fails to differentiate from sibling tools like 'record_preview_feedback' or 'compare_preview_runs', leaving ambiguity.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to plan versus record feedback). The description lacks context for appropriate usage, exclusions, or prerequisites.

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