qc_generate_check_plan

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Build or run' implies possible execution, but it does not say whether running a workflow mutates data, requires confirmation, performs only a dry run, or what safeguards 'guarded' actually enforces. The x_suso_qc metadata hints that output status and counts must be reviewed to know whether analysis was performed, but that context is not surfaced in the visible description.

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 a single sentence with no wasted words, so it is structurally clean. However, the brevity comes from omitting essential operational detail rather than from distilling rich information, making it closer to an under-specified stub than a genuinely effective definition.

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?

This is a complex, polymorphic tool with 8 parameters, nested objects, no annotations, and no output schema. The description tells an agent almost nothing about required inputs, expected output, guardrail behavior, or when to invoke it. The x_suso_qc outputContract provides some scaffolding, but it is buried in the schema and does not compensate for the missing operational context.

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 only 50%, and the description adds no parameter-level meaning. Parameters such as plan, profile, confirm_plan_id, and questionnaire_identity are left unexplained, while the description offers no help in understanding how plan, rules, thresholds, and variables relate to each other. An agent would struggle to construct a correct invocation.

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 says 'Build or run a guarded QC/support workflow,' which names a general action and resource, but it never specifies what a 'check plan' is, which QC workflows are supported, or what 'guarded' means. The schema's methodologySummary ('Workflow scaffold...') adds only a small hint and does not define a concrete deliverable or differentiate this from the many sibling qc_* tools.

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?

No usage guidance is provided. The description does not state when to use this tool, what prerequisites exist, or how it relates to alternatives such as qc_logical_consistency, summarize_export_qc, or the other QC-focused siblings. There are no exclusions, conditions, or alternative tool references.

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