plan_run

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of explaining side effects. It discloses that the output is 'immutable' and 'reviewed', but does not say whether this creates persisted state, requires special permissions, can fail on unsupported recipes, or whether it executes the recipe.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant phrasing. It is appropriately terse, though the unexplained acronym prevents it from being maximally useful.

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?

Even with an output schema present, the description omits key context: what CAE-IR is, how run_id affects behavior, and how this step relates to starting or validating a run. An agent would struggle to know prerequisites, side effects, or when this tool is the correct choice.

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 only indirectly implies that recipe_path is the recipe input. The run_id parameter is completely undocumented, including its optional/nullable nature and intended role.

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 states a specific action ('Compile') and resource ('a supported recipe') with a concrete output ('immutable reviewed CAE-IR'), which distinguishes it from execution-oriented siblings like start_run and validate_run. However, 'CAE-IR' and 'reviewed' are undefined, so some clarity is lost to jargon.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as validate_run or start_run. There are no stated prerequisites, exclusions, or explicit context for whether planning/compilation must happen before execution.

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