arvan_iac_terraform_plan

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description's addition of API key injection is helpful but not extensive. The description does not disclose other behavioral traits such as whether terraform init is automatically run (related to the `init` parameter) or any limitations.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the main action, and every sentence adds value. No wasted words.

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?

While the description adequately explains the tool's purpose and usage context, it lacks parameter explanations and any description of return values (no output schema exists). Given the moderate complexity, more detail on parameters would improve completeness.

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 any of the three parameters (files, directory, init). The description should at least hint at what these parameters do (e.g., specifying Terraform files location or whether to initialize), but it provides no parameter semantics.

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 that it runs 'terraform plan' to preview infrastructure changes. It specifies the provider (arvancloud/arvan) and mentions API key injection, making the tool's purpose specific and distinguishable from siblings like terraform_apply and terraform_destroy.

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 states 'Use this to preview infrastructure changes before applying,' providing clear context for when to use the tool. It implicitly guides toward using it before apply, though it does not explicitly exclude other use cases or mention alternatives.

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