crystal_plan

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true, readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false; the description restates idempotency and adds the useful detail that output is written to disk and that defaults are materialized explicitly. It does not say where files go, what permissions are needed, or what happens on re-run beyond the annotation. No contradiction with 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?

Two tight sentences with no filler, and the core action is front-loaded. 'Every default becomes explicit' is slightly cryptic but earns its place by flagging output behavior.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. Still missing for a tool that writes files: the write location, relationship to crystal_run as the follow-up step, and any auth context. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 75% and the schema itself documents model, options, and cif_paths constraints (series needs two or more). The description adds only 'one or more CIFs', which is weaker than the schema's minItems/maxItems. Baseline 3 since the schema carries the load.

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?

States specific verbs and resources: build/resolve a workflow, write it to disk, estimate its size, over one or more CIFs. An agent can understand it is a pre-execution planning step. However it uses domain jargon ('resolve', 'size') and never distinguishes itself from siblings like crystal_run or crystal_status.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative tool named. The pre-execution planning role is only implied by 'build and resolve a workflow'. Nothing tells the agent why to call this instead of crystal_run.

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