plan_command

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

The annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that the tool creates a non-shell plan and token, implying a write operation but not destructive. It does not disclose other behavioral traits like side effects, required permissions, or the lifecycle of the token. However, there is no contradiction 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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core action. No unnecessary words; every part contributes meaning. It is appropriately sized.

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?

Despite having an output schema and 9 parameters, the description is very brief. It does not explain the role of the approval token, how the plan relates to execution, or the expected workflow. Given the tool's complexity, the description lacks completeness to guide an agent effectively.

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 coverage is 100%, so all parameters have descriptions in the input schema. The tool description itself does not add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the full burden.

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 creates a non-shell execution plan and one-time approval token from project evidence. The verb 'Create' and the resource 'non-shell execution plan and one-time approval token' are specific. This distinguishes it from siblings like execute_plan (which likely executes plans) and start_case (which starts a case).

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks explicit context for usage, such as prerequisites (e.g., case must exist) or when not to use it. No comparison with sibling tools is given.

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