openmausbot_plan

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds 'Plan' which implies a dry-run preview, but does not elaborate on what the plan output contains or how it behaves beyond stating it does not mutate. The value beyond annotations is modest.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose and the non-mutating nature. Every word earns its place; there is no redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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 one well-documented parameter and an output schema (covering return format), the description provides sufficient information. It states what it does and the key behavioral constraint (no mutation), and the annotations cover safety and idempotency. Nothing essential is missing.

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 already documents the only parameter (path) with a description ('Desired-state JSON or YAML file path.'), and schema description coverage is 100%. The tool description adds no further parameter-specific meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('Plan') and a clear resource ('desired-state changes'), and explicitly states the tool does not send any mutation. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling mutation tools like openmausbot_update_bot or openmausbot_upsert_routine, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 clearly states a key exclusion: it does not send mutations, implying it should be used when the agent wants to preview changes before applying them. However, it does not name specific alternative tools for applying changes, so the guidance is clear on 'when not' but not on explicit alternatives.

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