plan_training_set

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 agent knows this is a safe, non-mutating operation. The description adds context about the data source (published or dated audit metrics) and the decision areas (quality, licence, benchmark, language-purity), which is useful but does not disclose any additional behavioral nuances beyond what annotations state. It does not contradict the annotations.

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, well-constructed sentence that immediately states the core purpose and key differentiators. There is no redundancy or filler; every phrase contributes to understanding the tool's function. It is appropriately concise and front-loaded with the main verb and object.

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 has 8 parameters but no required ones, an output schema, and safety annotations covering read-only/idempotent behavior. The description provides sufficient purpose and input context for an agent to infer how to invoke it, and the output schema handles return values. However, it does not explain the concept of a 'variant plan' or detail how the quality/licence/benchmark/language-purity decisions are made, which could be ambiguous for an unfamiliar agent. Given the complexity, this is a minor gap, so a 4 is appropriate.

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 description coverage is 88%, so most parameters already have explanatory text in the schema. The description mentions 'published or dated audit metrics' which maps to the metric_source parameter, and 'language-purity' aligns with include_mixed_language, but these are not elaborated beyond the schema's own descriptions. The description adds high-level context but does not meaningfully clarify individual parameters beyond what the schema already provides.

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 tool's purpose: to build a de-duplicated variant plan, using audit metrics and making explicit decisions on quality, licence, benchmark, and language-purity. The verb 'build' and specific resource 'variant plan' differentiate it from sibling tools like list_corpora, search_segments, and filter_segments, which perform more basic operations. It is specific enough for an agent to understand what the tool accomplishes, though it does not elaborate on what a 'variant plan' entails.

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 implies when to use this tool—when a de-duplicated variant plan with explicit quality and language-purity decisions is needed—but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or conditions when other tools (e.g., filter_segments, corpus_stats) would be more appropriate. No exclusions or contrasting guidance is provided, leaving the agent to infer usage from context rather than clear direction.

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