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, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds minimal informational value beyond that, mentioning that inputs are immutable and binding occurs 'before execution', which aligns with the read-only, idempotent annotations. No contradiction exists, but no significant extra behavioral context (e.g., side effects, permissions) is disclosed.

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 short sentence, free of fluff, and front-loads the core action ('Bind...'). It is concise, though the structure is minimal and lacks an overview or contextual hook. It earns high marks for brevity, but slightly loses because the sentence is vague and could incorporate more useful detail without bloating.

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 complexity of the request schema (two possible reduction types with many fields), the description is far too terse. While an output schema exists (so return values are covered) and annotations are provided, the description fails to explain what 'plan_reduction' accomplishes in the broader reduction workflow, what the 'request' shape should be, or any constraints. It offers minimal context for a tool of this complexity.

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 schema description coverage is 0% (the tool description has no parameter explanations). The sole 'request' parameter is complex, with two discriminated sub-types, and the description provides no guidance on how to choose between them or what fields mean. The schema itself provides some sub-schema descriptions, but the tool description adds no value, failing to compensate for the low coverage.

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 the verb 'bind' and identifies resources ('immutable input and approved reducer/predicate identities'). It clearly indicates this is a pre-execution planning step, implicitly distinguishing it from 'execute_reduction' and 'get_reduction'. However, it relies on jargon ('reducer/predicate identities') and doesn't explicitly state that it creates a reduction plan, so it falls short of full clarity.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention 'execute_reduction', 'get_reduction', or any other sibling tools, nor does it describe prerequisite conditions or exclusions. The one-sentence description leaves the agent to infer usage context solely from the name.

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