runtime_smoke_run_plan

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, so the description's 'start' matches that. The word 'durable' hints at persistence, but no further behavioral traits (e.g., side effects, reversibility) are disclosed beyond what annotations provide.

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, which is concise but lacks structure. It could be expanded slightly to include key details without becoming verbose.

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 and 3 opaque parameters, the description fails to provide sufficient context. It does not clarify return values, parameter selection criteria, or the meaning of 'durable'.

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 has 0% description coverage for 3 parameters. The description omits any explanation of 'plan', 'plan_path', or 'agent_mode', leaving the agent without guidance on how to populate these fields or their relationship.

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 validates then starts a 'durable runtime smoke run', using specific verbs and resource. This distinguishes it from siblings like runtime_smoke_start (just start) and runtime_smoke_validate_plan (just validate).

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus the separate validate or start tools. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or context given for selection among the many runtime smoke related siblings.

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