Create a complete recovery sequence

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

Annotations already tell the agent the operation is not read-only, not idempotent, and not destructive. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond those annotations by explicitly stating that no commands are executed, meaning the tool only produces guidance/planning content. This helps the agent set expectations about side effects.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It states the action, the inputs, the output, and a key behavioral constraint ('without executing commands') in under 15 words. Every phrase earns its place.

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 8-parameter schema with full coverage, annotations, and no output schema, the description provides enough context: it defines the output as a concise recovery plan and clarifies the non-execution behavior. It does not detail the plan's format or how to handle partially supplied inputs, but the required task parameter and well-described optional parameters make the tool usable.

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 coverage is 100%, so all eight parameters already have descriptions. The tool description adds conceptual meaning by mapping the plan components to diagnosis, focus, stimulation, and retry guidance, but it does not explain how specific parameters map to those components. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the parameter-documentation burden.

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 ('Combine') and resource ('diagnosis, focus, stimulation, and retry guidance into a concise recovery plan'), so an agent knows what the tool produces. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tools diagnose, focus, stimulate, and retry by framing those as components rather than the tool's own action. The phrase 'without executing commands' further differentiates it from the more action-oriented siblings.

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 clearly conveys that this tool is for synthesizing a recovery plan rather than executing recovery actions, which gives the agent a clear decision context. It does not explicitly enumerate exclusions or say 'use X when...', but naming the component tools implies when this orchestrator is appropriate.

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