apply_planset

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

The description discloses the expansion behavior and error returns, but lacks details on whether the tool is idempotent, whether it overwrites existing directories, or any required permissions. With no annotations, this is adequate but not comprehensive.

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?

Two sentences, no fluff. First sentence conveys core purpose, second adds error behavior. Front-loaded and efficient.

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 no output schema, the description covers return behavior (error reasons). It lacks details on successful output structure, side effects on existing files, and concurrency considerations. Still fairly complete for a tool of moderate complexity.

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 60% (3 of 5 params described). The description adds no additional parameter details; it relies on schema descriptions. For the covered params, it adds no extra meaning.

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 ('Expand ExperimentPlanSet members into N output directories') and the resources created ('its own cq.yaml + plan provenance'). It distinguishes from the sibling 'apply_plan' by operating on a planset of multiple plans.

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 usage for expanding multiple plans, but does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over 'apply_plan' or mention prerequisites like having a planset definition.

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