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 of behavioral disclosure. It crucially states 'Does not execute anything,' revealing a read-only nature. However, it does not mention side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or behavior on missing files/deeply nested indices. Additional details like input validation or file existence checks are missing.

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 extremely concise: two sentences that cover purpose, returned data, and non-execution. Every sentence provides necessary information without redundancy. It is well-structured and front-loaded with the primary function.

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 no output schema, the description adequately explains what is returned (status, operation, parameters, caveats). The tool is simple with two parameters and a straightforward purpose. However, it could mention potential error scenarios (e.g., invalid index, missing state file) to be fully complete. Overall, it provides sufficient context for an inspect tool.

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%, with both parameters well-documented in the input schema. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema, merely referencing 'action_log entry' and 'STATE.json' which are already clear from the schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description does not significantly enhance parameter understanding.

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 inspects a reversal plan for a recorded action_log entry, specifying the verb 'inspect' and resource 'reversal plan'. It lists returned fields (status, operation, parameters, caveats) and explicitly distinguishes from the sibling tool 'rollback_apply' by noting 'Does not execute anything.' This leaves no ambiguity about the tool's purpose.

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 usage context by stating it returns the plan and does not execute, suggesting use before a rollback. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'rollback_apply' or provide scenarios where it should not be used. The guidance is clear but lacks explicit exclusions or alternative references.

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