plan_reproduction_path

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that output is a plan shaped by "current policy and capture bundle state," hinting at dependence on prior state, but it does not say whether the plan is persisted, how policy conflicts are resolved, or what happens when required inputs are omitted (all six params are optional).

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 short, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant restatement of the name. It is efficient, though its brevity contributes to the semantic gaps scored elsewhere rather than being paired with any prioritization of key inputs.

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?

This is a six-parameter tool with nested objects and no output schema, so the description should at minimum say what the produced plan looks like or how to consume it, and which inputs are effectively required in practice. Instead it offers a single clause and leaves the plan's contents, structure, and downstream use entirely unstated.

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 100%, so every parameter including the nested candidates, site_profile, and capture_bundle objects is already documented, and the description adds no syntax, format, or defaulting detail beyond that. Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the full param burden.

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?

The description gives a specific verb ("Produce") and a resource ("source-first execution plan"), which is more than a tautology. But "reproduction path" is never defined, and nothing distinguishes this from siblings like build_reproduction_bundle, build_rebuild_scaffold, or clone_reference_url, so an agent cannot tell which planning/building step this is.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance, no stated preconditions or ordering relative to inspect_url / discover_embed_candidates / capture_reference_bundle, and no named alternatives. The only implied usage is that a policy and a capture bundle are involved, which the agent must infer from the parameter list.

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