validate_plan_text

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

No annotations provided. The description discloses it is heuristic and advisory, but lacks details on side effects, performance, or error behavior. With no annotations, the description carries moderate burden and provides some transparency.

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 pack the essential purpose and key behavioral note. No superfluous information; efficient and front-loaded.

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?

Core functionality is covered, but missing details on return value (no output schema) and parameter format. For a simple tool, this is adequate but not comprehensive.

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?

Only one parameter 'plan' with no schema description coverage. The description calls it 'plan text' but does not explain format or expected content beyond the rule list. Insufficient guidance for the agent.

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 performs a heuristic check for inviolable rule violations in plan text, listing specific examples like git fences and emojis. It differentiates from sibling tools which handle different workflows.

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?

Declares the check is 'advisory only — never blocking,' which tells when to use it as a non-blocking validation. Does not explicitly compare to alternatives, but the context is implied.

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