rollback_plan_get

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It clearly states the tool is read-only ('Does not execute anything.') and lists the return fields (status, operation, parameters, caveats). This provides good behavioral context for an inspection tool, though it could mention prerequisites like file existence.

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 two concise sentences: the first clearly states the purpose, and the second lists the return values and confirms no side effects. Every sentence is informative with no fluff.

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 the simple input (2 parameters) and absence of an output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool returns (status, operation, parameters, caveats). It does not detail the structure of the returned operation, but this is acceptable for a preview tool of moderate 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% and both parameters have adequate descriptions in the schema. The tool description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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' and resource 'reversal plan for a recorded action_log entry in STATE.json', clearly distinguishing it from the sibling 'rollback_apply' by explicitly stating 'Does not execute anything.' This makes the tool's purpose unambiguous and distinct.

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 description implies the tool should be used to preview a rollback before applying it, but does not explicitly state context like 'use this before rollback_apply' or mention when not to use it. The contrast with 'rollback_apply' is clear, but more explicit guidance would improve the score.

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