plan

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and it does disclose the key behavioral trait: this tool does not generate code. It also specifies the exact return shape, so an agent knows the observable result. It does not claim any hidden mutation or side effect, and 'Extract' aligns with a read-only semantic.

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 two compact sentences with the main purpose front-loaded and no filler. The second sentence provides concrete return information that directly supports correct invocation.

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 simple planning tool the core behavior and return shape are covered, and an output schema exists. However, the absence of parameter semantics and any pointer to when this tool belongs in the workflow leaves the surrounding context incomplete.

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 0%, so the description needed to compensate for the four parameters, but it does not explain model, provider, transport, or the required description field. The only parameter-related word is 'transport' in the return shape, which is not input semantics. The agent must guess what values or formats are acceptable.

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 names a specific action ('Extract') and resource ('structured server plan'), and immediately disambiguates from the sibling 'generate' by adding 'without generating code.' The return-key enumeration reinforces exactly what the tool produces.

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 phrase 'without generating code' implies this tool is for inspecting a plan rather than producing a server, which indirectly points away from 'generate.' However, it never states when to use it versus siblings like update, validate, or doctor, nor does it give a when-not-to-use condition.

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