rew_generate_trace_plan

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'create' without indicating side effects, prerequisites, or the meaning of 'hash-bound'. Whether the plan is safely read-only or requires existing measurements is unstated.

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 concise sentence with no wasted words, but it is too terse to be informative. It front-loads the action but sacrifices necessary detail, making the conciseness counterproductive.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (3 params, one nested object, no output schema) and no annotations, the one-sentence description is severely incomplete. It omits parameter details, prerequisites, and the meaning of key terms, leaving the agent unable to use it correctly.

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 does not explain any of the three parameters. The schema lacks property descriptions, so agents have no information about processName enum semantics, measurementIndices meaning, or the structure of the parameters object.

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) and resource (REW derived-trace plan), and the 'plan' suffix differentiates it from execution tools like rew_generate_trace_execute. However, 'allowlisted hash-bound' is ambiguous jargon that an agent may not interpret correctly without additional 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 is given on when to use this tool versus rew_generate_trace or rew_generate_trace_execute. The agent must infer from naming conventions that planning precedes execution, but there is no explicit instruction or alternative mention.

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