plan_reduction

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds context about immutability and approval, and the temporal 'before execution' framing, but does not explain what the plan contains or what happens after binding.

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 efficient sentence with no filler words. 'Bind immutable input and approved reducer/predicate identities' is front-loaded, and the temporal qualifier is placed at the end. It is concise, though arguably too sparse for the tool's complexity.

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?

This tool has a complex nested schema with many limit fields and zero parameter descriptions, yet the description offers only a vague one-liner. It does not explain what a reduction plan is, how to use the limits, what 'approved identities' means, or how this integrates with execute_reduction and get_reduction.

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 for the lack of parameter documentation. It does not mention source_run_id, predicate_workload, or limits, and only loosely alludes to 'immutable input' and 'approved reducer/predicate identities' without connecting them to schema fields.

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 a specific verb 'Bind' and names resources ('immutable input', 'approved reducer/predicate identities'), and 'before execution' hints that this is a planning step. However, it never explicitly states that this tool creates a reduction plan, and the jargon-heavy phrasing leaves the core purpose vague.

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?

'Before execution' implies this tool is a prerequisite to a later execution step, which distinguishes it from siblings like execute_reduction. But it provides no explicit when/when-not guidance and does not name any alternative tools or conditions.

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