Brute Genius Plan

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full load and does disclose two meaningful behaviors: it is a pure read/compute operation with no execution side effects, and it hard-refuses (returns no plan_id) when estimated cost exceeds max_cost_usd. It does not say whether a refused call still costs anything, whether plans persist or expire, or what a successful plan_id is used for downstream.

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?

Two short sentences, the core action front-loaded, then the two constraints. Nothing is padded and no sentence restates the tool name.

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?

An output schema exists to describe the plan and cost estimate, so the description need not explain return values. For a 5-parameter, fully documented, non-destructive compute tool, the description covers the two facts an agent cannot infer: no execution and cost-ceiling refusal.

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 100% and every parameter is documented in the schema, including max_cost_usd as a 'hard ceiling'. The description's only added parameter meaning is the refusal consequence of max_cost_usd, which the schema already states, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a concrete verb and resource (enumerate the Cartesian product of the `space` mapping, return a cost estimate) and immediately rules out the biggest ambiguity by saying 'Does NOT execute anything', which separates it from brute_genius_launch. An agent can tell what this does and what it does not do without opening the schema.

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 non-execution clause and the refusal rule give a clear context for when this tool is the right call (sizing a sweep before committing) and implicitly route execution to brute_genius_launch. However, no sibling is named explicitly and there is no statement about when planning is unnecessary or what to do when the plan is refused.

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