sysknife_plan

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

Description reveals the output structure (typed steps, risk levels, commands, transaction IDs) and the critical workflow constraint (stop and wait for real terminal approval). No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden; it does not contradict any.

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?

Three concise sentences: the first describes purpose and output, the next two provide essential usage instructions. No redundant information, well front-loaded.

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 output schema exists, the description appropriately summarizes return types. The usage workflow is fully explained, and the single parameter is well-covered. No gaps.

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?

The single parameter 'intent' has a complete description in the schema (100% coverage). The tool description does not add additional meaning beyond that, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 it plans a Linux system administration intent and returns structured steps with risk levels, commands, and transaction IDs. It distinguishes from sibling tools like sysknife_execute and sysknife_audit_verify by focusing on the planning phase.

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?

Explicitly instructs the agent to present the plan, then STOP, and requires the user to run 'sysknife approve' in a terminal. It also warns not to execute from chat approval alone, providing clear usage boundaries.

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