plan_remediation

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

The description notes '@slow', giving a performance warning. Without annotations, it doesn't explicitly state whether the tool is read-only or whether it modifies anything; the word 'planning' implies non-destructive but this is not explicit. Thus partial transparency.

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 compact and front-loaded with a clear summary, followed by usage examples. All content is useful and no redundancy.

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?

With an output schema present and full parameter descriptions, the description's use cases and scope notes make it complete for most planning queries. Missing explicit information about limitations or interactions between parameters, but overall sufficient.

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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so baseline is 3. The description provides no additional parameter-specific semantics beyond the schema, so it stays at 3.

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 its role: 'Remediation planning — patch priorities, deployment status, mitigation coverage, program gaps.' This is a specific verb+resource and differentiates it from sibling tools like investigate or assess_risk by focusing on remediation planning.

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?

Provides an explicit 'USE WHEN' list with natural language queries, making it clear when to invoke this tool. However, it doesn't mention alternatives or when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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