Plan integration

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the tool resolves a recipe and expands it into a plan, but does not disclose whether it mutates state, has side effects, requires prior steps, or what the exact output format is. The lack of any behavioral detail beyond the high-level process is a significant gap.

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, tightly packed sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core action and lists the key output components efficiently. Every word contributes value.

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 2-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description provides a reasonable high-level overview but lacks detail on expected return format, possible failure modes, and any dependencies on the surrounding knowledge system. Siblings like get_knowledge_status suggest prerequisites, but none are mentioned. It is functional but not fully self-sufficient.

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%: both goal and recipeId have clear descriptions. The tool description adds context about the overall process (e.g., 'closest by search') but does not add meaningful parameter-specific detail beyond the schema. Since coverage is full, a baseline of 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 action: given a goal, it resolves a recipe and expands it into a concrete plan with specific components (operations, SDK calls, errors, webhooks). This differentiates it from siblings like get_recipe (which just fetches a recipe) and validate_integration_plan (which validates, not plans).

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 it handles the recipe resolution internally, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_recipe or search_knowledge. There is no guidance on prerequisites (e.g., whether knowledge must be loaded) or scenarios where a sibling would be more appropriate.

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