plan_rehearsal

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses valuable behavioral details: using outcome history, predicting probabilities, flagging weakest step, and offering a fallback. However, it does not state whether the tool has side effects (e.g., read-only vs mutating) or describe the output structure, leaving some ambiguity.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the core action. The academic citation (Schacter & Addis, 2007) adds a small amount of extraneous detail but does not significantly impede understanding.

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?

The tool has two undocumented parameters and no output schema, yet the description does not explain how to invoke it or what the return value looks like. While the conceptual purpose is clear, an agent lacks critical operational context to use it effectively.

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 does not explain the meaning of 'goal' or 'top_k'. The description mentions 'each step' and 'outcome history' but does not connect these to the parameters, leaving the agent unable to correctly populate them.

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: 'Mentally rehearse a plan before executing' and elaborates on specific actions (predict success, flag weakest step, offer fallback). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like plan or predict_step by focusing on pre-execution simulation.

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 'before executing' provides a clear temporal context for when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or situations where this tool should not be used, missing the full guidance level.

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