plan_inference_scenario

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

Annotations already disclose read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the description need not repeat those. It adds useful context about supporting 'managed or existing-local server' and constructing a 'typed replay plan', but it does not reveal details about the preflight process, potential failure conditions, or what the plan contains. This is a modest addition beyond the 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?

The description is a single sentence of 12 words, front-loaded with the primary action. Every term ('Preflight', 'managed or existing-local server', 'typed replay plan') carries specific meaning, and there is no redundant language or filler.

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?

Despite having an output schema and safety annotations, the description is too terse for a tool with two undocumented parameters. It does not elaborate on what 'preflight' entails, how to specify the server via scenario_name, or what a 'typed replay plan' is. The presence of an output schema helps with return values, but the overall context is insufficient for an agent to invoke the tool with confidence.

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 no descriptions (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. However, it does not explain scenario_name or timeout_seconds at all, nor their relationship to the server or plan. The only hint is the tool name itself. For two parameters with zero documentation, the description fails to provide necessary semantic clarity.

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 specific verbs ('Preflight', 'construct') and clearly identifies the resource ('managed or existing-local server') and the output ('typed replay plan'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like run_inference_scenario by focusing on planning rather than execution, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 before running an inference scenario ('Preflight') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives or provide exclusion criteria. There is no mention of 'use this before run_inference_scenario' or similar guidance, leaving it to the agent to infer from the name and context.

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