action_plan

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

Annotations already indicate read-only and idempotent behavior. The description adds that the plan is prioritized by ROI and ease, and that each action includes DIY and CIA-assisted options. No contradictions with annotations.

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 well-structured with a clear purpose statement, usage note, and parameter list. It is comprehensive but not overly verbose; however, it could be slightly more concise without losing essential details.

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 complexity (6 parameters, no schema descriptions), the description thoroughly explains parameters and returns. It mentions the prerequisite of business_diagnose. Minor gaps: no discussion of error handling or rate limits, but annotations cover safety.

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%, so the description must carry the full burden. The description includes a detailed Args section explaining each parameter, including types, defaults, and examples. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare 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?

The description clearly states it generates a prioritized 30/60/90 day action plan based on diagnosis, with specifics like prioritizing by ROI and ease, and including DIY and CIA-assisted options. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly stating it should be used after business_diagnose.

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 explicit guidance to use AFTER business_diagnose, establishing a clear use case and prerequisite. It does not discuss when not to use or alternative tools, but the context is sufficient for an AI agent to understand the intended workflow.

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