check_plan_validity

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It transparently discloses the validation checks performed, the return fields, and the optional context behavior for escalation/stall detection. It does not explicitly state side effects (e.g., read-only), but for a validation tool the described behavior is sufficiently clear.

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?

The description is well-structured and front-loaded with the purpose. The required input example occupies space but earns its place by clarifying the exact structure. Every section (purpose, input format, returns, context) is concise and information-dense, with no filler.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (nested objects, optional context), the description covers the essential aspects: input format, semantics, return fields, and context purpose. There is no output schema, so listing return fields is helpful, though it does not detail the types/meaning of completeness_score or critical_path. Overall, it is complete enough for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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?

Although schema description coverage is 100%, the description adds substantial value by providing a concrete 'REQUIRED INPUT FORMAT' example with exact JSON structure, clarifying how to represent empty dependencies and optional resources. It also explains that resources are used to detect conflicts, which is not in the schema. This goes well beyond the schema descriptions.

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 clearly states a specific verb and resource: 'Validate a plan's logical structure: detect circular dependencies, missing prerequisites, and resource conflicts.' This distinguishes it from sibling validation tools like check_numeric_claims or verify_arithmetic, and the concrete list of checks makes the purpose unmistakable.

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?

The description establishes clear context for when to use the tool (validating plan logical structure) through its opening sentence and input format instructions. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, so it falls short of a 5. The guidance is still more than implied because it explains exactly what kinds of plans and structures it validates.

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