plan_spedas_observation

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It fails to explain what 'plan' entails operationally (e.g., generates a workflow, stores a plan, requires user input). The description is too vague about the tool's effects, output, or side effects, leaving agents uncertain about its exact behavior.

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, making it concise but overly sparse. It lacks structure such as front-loading key information or separating purpose from usage. While brevity is valued, the sentence fails to earn its place as it omits critical details about parameters and 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?

Given the tool has 6 parameters, no annotations, and many siblings, the description is insufficient. It does not explain what the plan looks like or how it feeds into later steps, even though an output schema exists. The agent needs more context to understand the planning scope and output structure.

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?

The input schema has 6 parameters with 0% description coverage. The description adds no meaning beyond the parameter names themselves, which are somewhat self-explanatory (e.g., 'science_goal', 'start'), but the schema has no descriptions or enums. The description should at least indicate how parameters relate to the planning process.

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 tool's purpose: 'Plan a SPEDAS science workflow'. It specifies the verb 'plan' and the resource 'SPEDAS science workflow', and distinguishes it from sibling tools like fetch_data or browse_parameters by noting it is used 'before using low-level CDAWeb/PDS/SPICE tools'.

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 provides clear usage context: 'before using low-level tools', indicating when to use this tool. It implies this is a preliminary step, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives among siblings. The guidance is sufficient but not comprehensive.

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