analyze_terraform_plan

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, closed-world, non-destructive behavior, so the bar is lower; the description still adds meaningful context by stating the output deliberately omits resource attribute values and that no infrastructure changes occur. It does not cover error behavior for missing/invalid plan files or path-allowlist rejection, which would be the next valuable additions.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and the second sentence exists specifically to set negative expectations about output and side effects. 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?

With annotations, full schema coverage, a single required parameter, and an output schema, the description covers what an agent needs to select and call it. A minor gap is that it doesn't state the plan must be the JSON rendering (e.g., from `terraform show -json`) rather than a binary plan file.

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 100% and the single plan_path parameter is documented as 'Local path within an allowed root.' The description's phrase 'local Terraform plan JSON file in an allowed directory' adds only slight clarification (JSON format) beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (summarize), resource (Terraform plan JSON), and the exact content returned (resource identities and proposed actions), plus scope constraints (local file, allowed directory). This is clearly distinguishable from evaluate_terraform_policies by the explicit disclaimer that no compliance evaluation occurs.

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 bounds when to use it by negating the sibling capability ('performs no compliance evaluation or infrastructure changes'), which implicitly routes compliance questions to evaluate_terraform_policies. It does not name the alternative tool explicitly or describe the plan-file prerequisite workflow, so it stops short of full guidance.

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