pleach_merge_plan

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full disclosure: it states 'Dispatches nothing and writes nothing', notes that summaries are cached, and mentions small cost. This is strong behavioral transparency for a read-only dry-run operation.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose, and each clause adds meaningful detail (dry-run, outputs, safety guarantees, usage hint). 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?

Despite no output schema or annotations, the description covers what it does, what it doesn't do, what it returns, and how to use it in sequence. It doesn't detail error cases or exact return structure, but those are not essential for a dry-run planning tool.

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% with all parameters described. The tool description does not add extra semantic detail beyond the schema's minimal 'Session id or prefix' for branch_a/branch_b, but it's already clear from context. Baseline of 3 applies when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 a specific action ('Dry-run'), identifies the resource ('a merge of two branches'), enumerates the outputs (branch point, merge-base method, confidence, exact prompt), and implicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'pleach_merge'.

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?

It explicitly instructs 'Review this before calling pleach_merge', creating a clear sequential workflow. While it doesn't formally list exclusions or alternative scenarios, the 'before' guidance implies its place in the tool pipeline.

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