Plan application deployment

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description doesn't need to restate safety. It adds valuable context by specifying that it 'Makes no remote changes' and 'returns the current application plan_id,' which clarifies the exact output and reinforces the read-only nature. This goes beyond the annotations by describing the concrete return value, though it doesn't cover edge cases like unregistered apps.

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 two concise sentences with no unnecessary words. It front-loads the core purpose and immediately provides the key differentiator (no remote changes, returns plan_id for deploy_app). Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundancy with the annotations.

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 that an output schema exists, the description doesn't need to explain return structure, but it does mention the return value (plan_id). It covers the main prerequisites (application must be registered) and states the read-only behavior. It doesn't address error conditions or what happens if the app is not found, but that is likely covered by the output schema. For a single-parameter tool with rich annotations, this is sufficiently complete.

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 schema has a single parameter 'name' with no description and 0% schema coverage. The description implies that 'name' refers to a registered application, but it does not explicitly state the parameter's meaning or format. While it provides some context, it doesn't fully compensate for the lack of schema documentation. An explicit note like 'name: the name of the registered application' would improve clarity.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Return Deployer's task execution plan for a registered application.' It specifies the resource (application) and the action (returning a plan). It distinguishes itself from siblings like plan_stack and plan_app_resources by focusing on the application-level plan and explicitly tying it to deploy_app, so an agent can tell it apart without opening schemas.

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 implicitly indicates when to use this tool: to obtain the plan_id needed for deploy_app. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or say 'use this before deploy_app,' but the phrase 'for deploy_app' clearly signals its purpose. There is no explicit exclusion of other tools, but the context is clear enough for an agent to infer its role in the deployment workflow.

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