mcp_plan_bridge

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered structurally. The description adds a genuinely useful behavioral caveat — 'Does not scan by itself' — which is important given the openWorld hint, since an agent might otherwise assume this tool touches the network. It doesn't say whether the plan is persisted or whether prior registry state is required.

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, zero waste, and the core transformation is front-loaded before the scope caveat. 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, open-world planning tool with no output schema, the description effectively names the return content (protocols, example configs, next tool calls) and rules out scanning. An agent has enough to invoke it correctly, though guidance on how the plan relates to the sibling execution tools is missing.

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 100% with two well-described params, so the schema does the heavy lifting — baseline 3. The description's 'natural-language goal' echoes the goal param but adds no syntax or format detail, and the optional host param is not addressed at all.

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 gives a specific verb+resource: it turns a natural-language goal into recommended protocols, example configs, and next tool calls. It also carves out scope against the discovery/scan family with 'Does not scan by itself.' It stops short of naming a specific sibling (e.g., discovery_suggest), which prevents a 5.

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?

Usage is implied: it's the planning step that consumes a goal. The 'Does not scan by itself' clause hints that scanning siblings are needed for actual probing, but it never states when to pick this over close siblings like discovery_suggest or discovery_probe. No explicit when/when-not routing.

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