recommend_validation_plan

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It does not mention whether the operation is read-only, any permission requirements, side effects, or the format of the returned plan. This is a significant gap for a tool that likely produces non-trivial output.

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 a single sentence, front-loaded with the core purpose, contains no redundant information, and is 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?

Given the simplicity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations) the description is minimal but adequate. However, it lacks details about the output format, how recommendations are generated, or any constraints (e.g., which file types are supported). For a 'comprehensive validation plan', more context would be beneficial.

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 clear descriptions for both parameters ('limit' and 'path'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'recommend' and resource 'validation plan' with scope 'for a file change'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'find_tests_for_change' or 'validate_patch' by focusing on a comprehensive plan combining test targets, coverage checks, and static checks.

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 context ('for a file change') but does not explicitly specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'find_tests_for_change' or 'validate_patch'. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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