rew_diagnostic_plan

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'bind' without revealing side effects, whether it is read-only, whether it modifies state, or what the output looks like. This is grossly insufficient for a tool that interacts with a live API.

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 short (one sentence), but brevity here is under-specification, not conciseness. It lacks essential information and does not front-load any actionable detail beyond a vague verb.

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 three parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is completely inadequate. It gives no sense of how to construct a valid call, what the 'exact command' means, or what constitutes a successful result.

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%, so the description must compensate for the parameters (endpoint, command, parameters). It does not mention any of them or their role in 'binding'. The agent is left without any explanation of what each parameter means.

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 ('Bind') and a resource ('an exact command exposed by the live REW diagnostic API'), but the meaning of 'bind' is unclear—it does not explain whether this prepares, configures, or selects a command. It does not differentiate from sibling tools like rew_diagnostic_execute, which likely performs the action.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as rew_diagnostic_execute or other planning siblings. The description provides no context about its role in a workflow or prerequisites.

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