clash.optimize.execution_plan

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It explicitly states 'Read-only' and 'Does NOT execute any action or modify configuration', clearly disclosing non-destructive behavior. It doesn't cover auth needs or rate limits, but for this tool those are unlikely critical.

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 long, front-loads the key identity ('Read-only execution plan builder'), and every sentence adds value without redundancy. It is maximally concise.

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 the tool has 2 parameters (both with schema descriptions) and no output schema, the description adequately explains what it returns (executable/blocked actions and the 8-step protocol). It could be slightly more detailed about the output structure, but it is largely complete 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% with both parameters already described sufficiently. The description adds marginal context by stating the tool 'checks each action' but does not materially improve understanding beyond the schema definitions. Baseline of 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 the tool as a 'Read-only execution plan builder' and specifies its exact function: checking proposed actions against capability gates and returning executable/blocked status. It distinguishes itself from sibling optimizer tools (e.g., verify_baseline, dns) by being a planning, non-executing tool.

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 implies the tool requires a baselineVerification from verify_baseline and proposedActions, indicating when to use it. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives among siblings, so it lacks full usage guidance.

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