sysknife_plan

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

The description reveals that the tool returns plans with risk levels, commands, and transaction IDs, and emphasizes the approval workflow. Although no annotations are provided, the description itself conveys the non-execution nature. It lacks explicit mention of side effects or permissions, but the planning role is well-explained.

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 extremely concise: two sentences covering purpose and critical usage instructions. Every sentence is essential, and the important warning is front-loaded after the purpose.

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 simple input (one natural-language string) and the presence of an output schema (not shown but assumed to detail steps), the description is complete. It provides all necessary context 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?

The schema covers the single parameter 'intent' with a clear description and examples. The tool description does not add additional semantics beyond the schema, but schema coverage is 100%, 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 the tool's purpose: 'Plan a Linux system administration intent. Returns typed steps with risk levels, resolved commands, and daemon transaction IDs.' It uses a specific verb (plan) and resource (system administration intent), and distinguishes from siblings like sysknife_execute and sysknife_audit_verify.

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?

Explicit guidance is given: 'Present the plan, then STOP. The user must run `sysknife approve <transaction-id>` in a real terminal. Do not execute from chat approval alone.' This clearly states when to use the tool and what action to take next, preventing misuse.

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