build_file_relink_plan

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Build...plan' implies a non-mutating planning operation, but the description does not explicitly state that no files are modified, what the plan contains, or how downstream tools consume it.

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 single sentence is concise and free of filler, and the core action is front-loaded. However, it is under-specified for a three-parameter tool, so the brevity borders on incompleteness rather than ideal conciseness.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description needs to explain return shape, parameters, and side effects, but it only provides a terse summary. An agent has insufficient context to know what a 'grouped actionable relink plan' looks like or how to use the two required arguments.

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%, and the description adds no information about assembly_path, search_root, or relink_all. The optional boolean relink_all is completely unexplained, leaving the agent unable to determine its effect on the generated plan.

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 states a clear action and object: 'Build a grouped actionable relink plan for an assembly file.' This is specific enough to convey high-level intent. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like build_relink_plan or build_file_relink_map_plan.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as build_relink_plan, build_file_relink_map_plan, or preview_relink_paths. It does not state prerequisites, exclusions, or the role of the plan in a larger relink workflow.

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