remediation_plan

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

Describes the output (ordered steps for all sections) but does not disclose whether the tool has side effects, requires authentication, or accesses the file system beyond reading the project. With no annotations, this is a moderate gap.

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 brief but packs essential information: purpose, condition, content, requirement, and an example. Every sentence earns its place, and it's front-loaded with the core action.

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 no output schema or annotations, the description covers the tool's function well. It explains the output structure (ordered steps for 6 sections) and usage context. A small gap is lack of detail on return format structure, but it's sufficient for an agent.

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% and the schema descriptions are clear. The overall description does not add extra parameter meaning beyond what's already in the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 remediation plan from full_audit results, specifying the 6 sections. It distinguishes itself as the mandatory follow-up tool but does not explicitly differentiate from similar sibling tools like explain_remediation.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: after full_audit when verdict is FAIL or WARN. Also provides a condition (must complete every section) and an example invocation, giving unambiguous guidance.

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