audio_support_bundle_plan

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that raw traces and identifying metadata are omitted, which is a useful redaction behavior, but it does not describe what the plan contains, whether it writes a file, how it handles hashing, or any side effects. For a tool with no annotations, 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 sentence with no extraneous content, but it is under-specified rather than concise. Important details about what the plan entails and parameter usage are omitted. While it is short, it fails to earn its place by providing essential information, so it scores low.

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?

With no output schema, no annotations, and a vague description, the tool is incomplete for an agent to use correctly. The term 'hash-bound' is unexplained, the relationship to execute tools is absent, and the parameters are not elaborated. Given the presence of a specific outputName pattern in the schema, more context is needed to understand the artifact and plan format.

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 provides no mapping to the three parameters (home, outputName, sourceFile). It does not clarify the role of sourceFile (presumably the input artifact) or outputName (the plan file) or how 'home' affects execution. The description adds no value beyond the schema, which is insufficient given the lack of parameter documentation.

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 specific action: create a plan for a redacted JSON support artifact, and clarifies that raw traces and identifying metadata are omitted. This distinguishes it from generic plan tools and hints at its purpose, though the term 'hash-bound' is unclear and not further explained. It is clear enough to identify the tool's intent but lacks explicit differentiation from sibling plan/execute pairs.

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. It does not mention that it should be used before an execute counterpart, nor does it specify scenarios where this tool is appropriate or inappropriate. The description only implies a planning role but gives no actionable usage context.

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