rew_load_file_plan

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the high-level action without any details on side effects, reversibility, permissions, or return behavior. The phrase 'hash-bound' is undefined, and there is no mention of whether this operation is read-only, writes anything, or what the plan contains.

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 filler, which is concise and front-loaded. However, the brevity comes at the cost of essential information, so while it earns a high score for conciseness, it is not fully effective.

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?

The description is severely incomplete for a tool with two parameters, no annotations, and no output schema. An agent would not know what the plan looks like, what 'hash-bound' means, or what values to pass for 'file' and 'home'. It is far from the minimum viable definition.

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 either parameter. 'file' and 'home' are left undefined; the agent cannot infer their purpose or format, which is critical for a tool with a required parameter.

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 (a hash-bound plan to load a workspace-contained MDAT into REW). It distinguishes from execution siblings like rew_load_file_execute by indicating it only creates a plan, but the term 'hash-bound' is left undefined, introducing some ambiguity about the plan's nature.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as rew_load_file or rew_load_file_execute. It does not indicate prerequisites, sequencing (plan before execute), or any conditions that would select this tool over others.

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