Plan session

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds minimal behavioral context consistent with read-only behavior (finding profiles/credentials and planning), but it does not disclose what the plan contains, whether live network checks are performed, or what the output looks like. It does not contradict the 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?

At six words, the description is under-specified rather than genuinely concise. 'Find profiles/credentials; plan setup' reads like a note-to-self and fails to earn its place as a functional tool definition—there is no front-loaded verb-object statement of effect, no scope, and no return 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?

For a tool with 6 parameters, no output schema, and complex inter-parameter constraints (needs enums with exclusion logic), this description is far too thin. An agent cannot determine what the tool returns, how the goal enum affects the plan, or how this differs from other session tools. The cryptic schema notes are not compensated for by the description.

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 100%, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description itself adds nothing about parameters like needs, cursor, country, or minutes, and the schema's own descriptions are cryptic (e.g., goal is just 'Mode'; needs uses terse constraint strings like 'protected_text=read'), but per the rubric the high schema coverage keeps this at baseline.

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 offers a concrete verb+resource in 'Find profiles/credentials' but 'plan setup' is vague and largely restates the title 'Plan session.' It hints at a discovery/planning operation but never states what the tool actually returns or does with the found profiles/credentials, and it does not clearly distinguish itself from siblings like steel_session_create or steel_find.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention steel_session_create, steel_find, or any sibling, nor any condition such as 'call before creating a session.' An agent is left to infer the intended workflow entirely from the tool name and terse fragments.

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