plan_validate

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

The description adds some context beyond annotations by naming the three validation criteria (schema, readiness gate, safety guardrails), but it does not explain what happens on failure, whether it returns pass/fail details, or any side effects. Since readOnlyHint is already true, the read-only nature is covered. The description is consistent with annotations, so no contradiction, but it stops short of fully disclosing validation outcomes.

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 that front-loads the action and scope. Every word contributes to the meaning, with no fluff or redundancy. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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?

Although an output schema exists, the description is incomplete for practical use. It does not explain when to invoke validation (e.g., before saving) or what the validation criteria entail (e.g., what the readiness gate or safety guardrails are). An agent may not understand the domain-specific terms or the tool's role in the workflow, leaving significant gaps for a tool with a nested plan object.

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 100%, with both 'plan' and 'compare_with_current' already documented. The description itself does not add any additional meaning about the parameters, such as how the plan is structured or what the comparison entails. It relies entirely on the schema, which is adequate for a baseline score.

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 clearly states the action (validate) and the object (a plan), and specifies what it validates against: the schema, readiness gate, and safety guardrails. This distinguishes it from siblings like plan_save or plan_get_current, which perform different actions. The verb is precise and the resource is 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention that it should be called before saving a plan, or that it complements plan_save or plan_suggest_adjustments. No exclusions or alternative tools are referenced, leaving the agent to infer its role.

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