aem_validate_integration_plan

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It implies a read-only validation but does not explicitly state side effects, rate limits, or auth requirements. The lack of detail on behavior beyond 'checks' limits transparency.

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?

Single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the purpose and lists key checks. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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 no output schema, the description should explain what the tool returns or how results are presented. It also lacks information on error handling, which is critical for a validator. The description is insufficient for an agent to fully understand the tool's interface.

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 60%, and the description adds high-level context about what is validated (e.g., steps, safeguards) but does not explain each parameter in detail. For example, the 'safeguards' object and 'executionPolicy' object lack concrete guidance on expected structure.

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?

Description clearly identifies the tool as a 'Preflight validator for AEM integration plans' with specific checks (required steps, safeguards, policy controls, unknown steps, coverage). It uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes itself from sibling tools that focus on explanation or planning.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites or context for usage, leaving the agent to infer its role from the tool name and sibling list.

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