runtime_plan

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value by clarifying that generation does not execute the scenario or log out the app, but it omits permissions required, what the generated plan contains, and whether the report_id source affects the output.

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 short sentences with no filler, and the core action is front-loaded ahead of the negative constraint. It is efficient, though the second sentence is a caveat rather than a positive usage signal.

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?

The presence of an output schema means return values need not be explained, which lowers the burden. Still, with three fully undocumented parameters and only an abstract artifact noun, an agent lacks enough to call this correctly or to select it confidently over execution-oriented siblings.

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%, so the description carries the full burden for package, platform, and report_id — and it supplies none of them. The only implicit hint is the report_id default of "latest"; what package or platform accept, and how they shape the generated scenario, is entirely undocumented.

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?

States a specific verb and artifact ("Generate an editable test scenario"), which distinguishes it from execution-oriented siblings like audit_start or runtime_devices. However, "test scenario" remains somewhat abstract and the description never names an alternative tool, so the differentiation is implicit rather than explicit.

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?

"Does not run it or log out the app automatically" implies this is a planning/authoring step rather than an execution step, which gives the agent a usable context cue. But it names no alternatives and states no when-to-use condition relative to siblings like audit_start or runtime_devices, so guidance is only implied.

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