observe

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

The description adds the key behavior that the tool plans without executing, which is important safety context. However, with only openWorldHint as an annotation, the description does not disclose caching behavior, the optional LLM dependency, or what happens to lease/session state, leaving part of the behavioral burden on the schema descriptions.

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?

A single sentence with no filler, focused on the core purpose and key limitation. It is appropriately sized and the main idea is front-loaded.

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?

With no output schema and only a bare description, an agent cannot tell what shape the planned 'verb + target' takes, how to consume the return value, or how to chain observe into a later execution step. The description gives the gist but leaves critical operational details undocumented.

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 baseline is 3. The description only mentions 'intent' generically and adds no additional detail about llm, force, lease, or session; all parameter semantics are already in the schema.

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 states a specific verb ('plan') and a clear resource ('verb + target for an intent'), and the phrase 'without executing' distinguishes it from execution-focused siblings like click or type. It does not explicitly call out a sibling that does the same thing, so it does not fully achieve the 5-level distinction.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no excluded scenarios, and no condition such as 'use this before act' or 'instead of explore'. The 'without executing' clause implies a planning use-case, but that is not enough actionable guidance for an agent selecting among many similar planning/observation tools.

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