rew_launch_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. It says 'create a plan' but does not clarify that this tool does not actually launch REW, what side effects exist, what 'hash-bound' means, or whether it returns a plan identifier. This ambiguity leaves the agent uncertain about the tool's actual behavior and output.

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 redundant words. It front-loads the core action and condition. However, the brevity comes at the cost of omitted essential details, so it earns a high score for style but not perfection.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and minimal schema descriptions, the description is insufficient for an agent to fully understand the tool. It fails to explain key concepts (e.g., 'hash-bound', what a 'plan' is, whether it executes or only prepares), return values, or how the plan is consumed by sibling tools like rew_launch_execute. This is a notable gap for a planning tool that likely feeds into an execution step.

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?

The description mentions 'automatic discovery or an explicit user-supplied executable path,' which indirectly covers the executablePath parameter, but it completely omits startupTimeoutSeconds. With schema description coverage at 0%, the description fails to explain the timeout parameter's purpose, constraints, or default behavior, leaving half the parameters undocumented semantically.

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 verb ('create') and resource ('hash-bound plan to start REW') and specifies a condition (local API offline). It clearly differentiates from the sibling tool rew_launch_execute, which presumably executes the plan. However, the term 'hash-bound' is unexplained and vague, which slightly reduces clarity.

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?

The description implies usage when the local API is offline, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as rew_launch_execute (which likely executes the plan) or rew_install_discover. It does not mention when not to use it or distinguish scenarios necessitating this planning step.

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