Plan stack provisioning

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds the unavailability condition ('Unavailable packages make the plan unready') and confirms it returns a plan_id, which is useful context beyond the annotations. No contradiction.

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?

Two sentences, no waste, front-loaded with the main function and then the key non-mutating property. Excellent.

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 presence of an output schema and rich annotations, the description covers the core behavior: what it does, that it makes no changes, and the unavailability condition. It could be more explicit about when to use versus other planning tools, but that's a minor gap. Overall sufficient.

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?

No parameters exist (schema is empty), so baseline 4. The description adds that it uses the 'configured host's current package metadata', which explains the context of the operation. This adds meaning beyond the empty schema.

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?

States a specific verb ('resolve') and resource ('desired packages against host's package metadata'), and clearly distinguishes itself from provision_stack by stating it returns a plan and makes no changes. The purpose is unmistakable.

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 explicitly mentions provision_stack as the follow-up, implying this is the pre-execution step. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with other planning tools like plan_app_resources or plan_deploy, so it's clear but not exhaustive.

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