aiworkhub_cli_adapter_plan_readonly

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses no audit entry, no task-queue mutation, no launch, env redaction including secrets, read-only regardless of the write gate, and the collision preflight's no-lock/no-claim behavior. These are exactly the behavioral traits an agent needs before invoking.

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 safety guarantee is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the remaining detail is dense but earns its place. It is slightly verbose but no sentence is wasted.

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?

Since an output schema exists, return-value explanation is unnecessary, and the description covers behavioral semantics and the collision preflight thoroughly. The main gap is the lack of parameter-level meaning for five of the seven inputs.

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% across 7 parameters, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for only two params (argv validated against the static allowlist, env redacted) while task_id, runner, topic, adapter_id, and repo remain completely undocumented in both description and schema.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Return a validated launch PLAN without writing anything.' It further clarifies the wrapper (plan_dryrun(audit=False)) and explicitly contrasts with write behavior ('launches NOTHING'), which distinguishes it from siblings like aiworkhub_agent_launch_task.

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?

Implies the tool is for validating/dry-running a command plan, and the 'read-only holds regardless of write gate' note gives useful context. However, it never explicitly states when to prefer this over alternatives such as aiworkhub_agent_launch_task or the write variants, leaving the use-vs-alternative decision to inference.

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