mimry_plan_digest

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

With no annotations the description carries the full burden. 'Return' implies a non-mutating operation and 'canonical semantic' signals that equivalent plan trees hash identically regardless of formatting, which is useful behavioral context. However, it says nothing about error behavior for unknown plan_ids, permissions, or determinism guarantees.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the key term (canonical semantic SHA-256) leads immediately.

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-format explanation is not required, and the tool is simple with two parameters. Still, the unexplained 'root' parameter and absent usage guidance leave gaps for an agent deciding when and how to call 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%, so the description must compensate and does not. It never explains plan_id or the optional 'root' parameter (string|null, default null), leaving the agent to guess what 'root' scopes.

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 resource: returning the canonical semantic SHA-256 of a stored plan tree. That is enough to separate it from mimry_plan_tree and mimry_plan_check, though it never names a sibling or clarifies how it differs from the non-plan mimry_digest.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (must the plan already exist?), and no mention of alternatives such as mimry_digest or mimry_plan_tree. The agent must infer the context entirely.

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