runtime_plan

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral context by clarifying that the generated scenario is editable and will not be executed or trigger automatic logout. It does not cover permissions, persistence, or other operational details, but that is a modest gap given the 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 very short and front-loads the core action in the first sentence, with the caveat immediately after. It is efficient with no filler, though its brevity means it omits important parameter guidance.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained here, and annotations cover the safety profile. Still, for a tool with three optional inputs, no schema descriptions, and ambiguous scope, the description should say more about what the scenario is based on and how package/platform/report_id shape it.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description does not mention any of the three parameters (package, platform, report_id). It adds no meaning about what these inputs select or how they affect the generated plan, leaving the agent with only bare parameter names.

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 gives a verb and object: 'Generate an editable test scenario.' However, 'test scenario' is vague without saying what domain or system it applies to, and no sibling tool is named or contrasted, so an agent must infer the tool's precise role among runtime and audit siblings.

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 second sentence provides an important usage boundary: it does not run the scenario or log out the app automatically. That implies the tool is for planning only, but it does not state when to choose it over alternatives such as audit_start or runtime_devices, nor does it describe prerequisites.

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