dm_plan_result

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It hints that a workflow check may be triggered ('when deterministic') but never explains permissions, side effects, idempotency, or what 'deterministic' means here — a significant gap for a write tool with no 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?

Terse and front-loaded, but the pseudo-signature 'Input: {plan_id*, [transcript], ...}' is cramped and its bracket/asterisk notation is never explained. It's efficient but cryptic rather than clear.

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 needn't be described. Still, for a mutation tool with no annotations, a nested free-form payload, and 0% schema coverage, the description should explain the payload's shape and the 'workflow check' side effect more fully.

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 0% and the single 'payload' parameter is an untyped object with additionalProperties true. The description lists internal payload keys (plan_id*, transcript, final_output, cost, conflict, trial_id, pair_id, arm) that appear nowhere in the schema, adding some meaning, but it doesn't specify types or formats for those keys.

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 ('Record a planned run's result'), which distinguishes writing a result from siblings like dm_plan_run. However, it never clarifies what a 'planned run' or a 'plan result' is, and the sibling dm_plan_run is not contrasted explicitly, leaving the boundary vague.

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 statement of when this should be used versus dm_plan_run, dm_record, or do_plan_result. The only usage hint is the cryptic 'Runs the workflow check when deterministic', which doesn't tell an agent when to call this tool.

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