mimry_plan_check

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the single most important behavioral trait — validation is non-mutating — but says nothing about permissions, what happens on an invalid tree, or whether it reports warnings vs errors. That is one genuine disclosed trait against many undisclosed ones.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is efficient, though the terseness edges toward under-specification rather than tight writing.

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 described. However, for a 2-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no usage guidance, an agent still lacks what validation means, how 'root' scopes the check, and when to invoke this rather than its plan_* 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% and the description never mentions either parameter. 'plan_id' is at least inferable from 'stored plan tree', but 'root' — an anyOf string/null with a null default — is left completely unexplained, which is exactly the kind of ambiguity the description needs to resolve.

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 ('validate') and resource ('stored plan tree'), which is enough to distinguish it from write-oriented siblings like mimry_plan_tree and mimry_plan_digest. It stops short of naming a sibling or saying what 'validate' actually checks (structure? schema? cycles?), so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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?

There is no indication of when to reach for this tool versus mimry_plan_tree, mimry_plan_digest, or mimry_plan_list, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The only implicit guidance is the phrase 'without changing it', which hints at a read-only audit use case but does not route the agent.

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