plan_inference_scenario

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

Annotations already disclose readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, lowering the burden on the description. The description adds that a single benchmark launcher is qualified and a typed plan is constructed, but it does not clarify whether qualification has side effects or whether the plan is persisted. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

One short sentence with no filler. The action and object are front-loaded, and every word contributes meaning. It is concise without being a tautology.

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?

With an output schema, safety annotations, and only two parameters, the description is close to sufficient for basic invocation. However, the meaning of 'qualify' and any prerequisite configuration are left vague, and the description gives no help selecting this tool among the many plan_* and run_* siblings.

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%, so the description must compensate. It hints that scenario_name refers to a benchmark launcher, but it does not explain either parameter's role beyond the schema titles. timeout_seconds is left entirely to its name, type, default, and bounds, which are partly self-explanatory but not fully enriched by the description.

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 names the operation ('qualify'), the object ('one benchmark launcher'), and the result ('typed execution plan'), so the overall purpose is clear. It does not explicitly distinguish this from siblings like plan_inference_profile, plan_capture, or run_inference_scenario, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as plan_capture, plan_inference_profile, or run_inference_scenario. Prerequisites, exclusions, and sequencing hints are absent; the agent must infer from the name that this is a planning-phase tool.

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