capacity_plan

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 safety profile is covered. The description adds that the tool combines multiple analytical steps (forecasting, classification, seasonality, change points) and returns per-datasource projections. This is useful context but does not go into detailed behavior such as data requirements or how the composite steps interact.

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 dense sentences with zero filler. The first sentence enumerates the tool's analytical capabilities, and the second tells the agent what output to expect. Information is front-loaded and every clause earns its place.

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?

For a read-only, idempotent analytics tool with 100% schema parameter coverage, the description is mostly sufficient. It states what the tool does and what it returns, but it does not mention how parameters like hours_back or detail_level shape the composite analysis, nor does it advise on when the composite is preferable to individual sibling tools. Still, given annotations and full schema, this is a minor gap.

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 100% — all six parameters have individual descriptions. The tool description itself doesn't add any parameter-level semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 a specific verb-resource relationship: 'Composite capacity planning' that forecasts breach dates, classifies trends, and detects seasonality/change points. It differentiates itself from sibling tools like forecast_metric or detect_seasonality by explicitly positioning itself as a composite, overarching planning operation.

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 term 'composite' implies this is the all-in-one alternative to individual analysis tools like forecast_metric, classify_trend, detect_seasonality, and detect_change_points. However, it never explicitly says when to choose this tool over those siblings, nor does it state any exclusions or prerequisites. Usage context is implied, not stated.

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