architect_runtime_plan

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds two non-obvious traits: the plan is 'revision-bound' and no run is created as a side effect. However, 'revision-bound' is never explained, and what the preview produces (plan shape, gate outcomes) is left vague.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler and the key negative constraint placed last for emphasis. Efficient, though its brevity contributes to the gaps elsewhere.

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?

For a 4-parameter tool with 25% schema coverage and no output schema, the description should clarify the array parameters and what a preview returns. It names the artifacts ('plan and gates') but leaves output shape and the meaning of `only`/`tasks` to inference.

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 only 25% — just `workspace` is documented — yet the description gives no meaning for `only`, `tasks`, or `base_change`. 'Revision-bound' faintly gestures at `base_change` but never explains it, so the three undocumented parameters remain opaque.

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?

Specific verb ('Preview') plus specific resources ('task plan and gates'), and it explicitly distinguishes itself from the run-creating sibling by stating 'without creating a run'. It stops short of naming architect_runtime_start directly, but an agent can infer the boundary.

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 phrase 'without creating a run' implies the dry-run/validation use case versus architect_runtime_start, but no alternative is named and no condition for choosing preview over actually starting a run is spelled out. Usage is implied rather than guided.

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