rollback_plan_get

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly states the tool is read-only ('nothing is executed'), describes the nature of the returned data (statuses, coverage, caveats), and notes that partial coverage is determinable beforehand. It does not cover error conditions or edge cases like missing STATE.json, but the core safety profile is well disclosed.

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 dense but well-structured: a one-sentence purpose, then a clear split for the two modes, and a concluding read-only note. Every sentence adds value and there is no redundant phrasing. The use of code formatting for parameters improves scannability.

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 there is no output schema, the description thoroughly explains the return information for both modes (planner status, operation, parameters, caveats; member verdicts and coverage). It also provides the key context that this is a pre-application planning tool, making it complete for the tool's complexity.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantics by explaining that index targets a single entry and batch_id covers a whole bulk change with per-member and per-platform coverage, going beyond the schema's brief descriptions. It does not mention state_file in the description, but the schema already explains its default.

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 uses a specific verb ('Inspect the reversal plan') and identifies the resource ('recorded action_log entries in STATE.json'). It clearly distinguishes two invocation modes (index vs batch_id) and differentiates this inspection tool from the sibling rollback_apply by emphasizing it is read-only and does not execute anything.

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?

It provides clear context for when to use index versus batch_id, including the source of batch_id (mureo_batch_begin). It implies this tool should be used before applying a rollback ('partial coverage is known BEFORE anything is applied'), but it does not explicitly name rollback_apply as an alternative or state when not to use the tool.

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