tf_show_plan

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

No annotations are provided, and the description fails to disclose any behavioral traits. It does not mention that the tool is a read operation, whether it outputs to stdout, or any requirements like the plan file must exist. The burden falls entirely on the description, which is insufficient.

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 very short (4 words) and front-loads the purpose, which is good for conciseness. However, the brevity comes at the cost of missing essential information, making it under-informative rather than efficiently concise.

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 lack of output schema, annotations, and the presence of 2 parameters (one required), the description is incomplete. It does not explain what 'show' entails, the output format, or any constraints. The agent would need to guess the behavior.

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?

The input schema has two parameters (dir and plan_file) with 0% description coverage. The description adds no explanation for either parameter, leaving the agent without clarity on their syntax or expected values.

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 'Show saved plan file' uses a specific verb 'Show' and identifies the resource as a saved plan file, making the purpose clear. However, it does not differentiate from related sibling tools like tf_state_show or tf_output, which could also display state or output.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like tf_apply or tf_plan. It lacks context about prerequisites or typical workflow scenarios.

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