proximo_plan

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

Consistent with readOnlyHint=true ('READ-ONLY', 'Mutates nothing') and adds real context beyond the annotation: a mutation's plan performs one governed, receipted read of the target, and the plan classifies state as current/change/noop. The receipted-read side effect is exactly the kind of disclosure annotations cannot carry; only the audit/receipt mechanism itself is left vague.

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?

Front-loaded with the READ-ONLY guarantee and mutation-free framing, then the ordering constraint. The telegraphic phrasing ('receipted', 'noop', 'current, change') is dense but no sentence is redundant; only the fragmented style slightly hurts readability.

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 shapes need not be described, and the safety/ordering story is complete. But for a four-parameter planning tool with zero schema description coverage, leaving 'plane' and 'method' unexplained means an agent cannot reliably construct a call from the description alone.

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: it does explain path (accepts words, may match one or several) and implies args behavior via 'change (from/to per argument)'. However, 'plane' (pve/pbs/pmg/pdm enum) and 'method' are never explained, leaving two of four parameters opaque.

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 outcome: the governed verdict/plan for one address plus the vendor's published parameters, and explicitly says it is a read-only preview run before proximo_call. The verb 'plan' and the resource (an addressed API call, per plane/method/path) are identifiable even though the domain jargon ('governed verdict', 'plane') is never unpacked.

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?

'Run before proximo_call' gives an explicit ordering relative to the main sibling, and 'path may be words: one match is planned, several come back to pick from' tells the agent when to expect a disambiguation response. No explicit when-not-use case is stated, but the sequencing guidance is unambiguous.

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