Plan defensive assessment

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds the crucial behavioral trait that the tool does not execute network tools, which goes beyond the annotations. It does not describe return format, but an output schema is present.

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 one sentence of about 12 words, front-loaded with the action verb 'Create' and free of any filler. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and boundary.

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?

The tool is simple, has an output schema, and rich annotations that cover safety and execution semantics. The description fully captures the planning-only scope and distinguishes it from execution tools. No additional detail is necessary.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate for parameter meaning, but it does not. 'target' and 'engagement_id' are self-explanatory by name, but 'profile' is ambiguous and no constraints or formats are given. The description adds zero parameter semantics.

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 specific verb 'Create' with the resource 'assessment plan' and specifies scoping ('bounded web or repository') and the key constraint ('without running network tools'). This clearly distinguishes it from execution-focused siblings like scan_repository.

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 phrase 'without running network tools' gives clear context that this is for planning only, not execution. It implies use before an actual scan, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, leaving some room for interpretation.

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