plan_risk_model

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

The description discloses the read-only nature and what the tool reports (declared outputs, hard-coded cells, checklist). While no annotations are present, the description covers key behavioral traits. It does not mention error conditions or response format, but the output schema handles the latter.

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 concise: two sentences plus an imperative instruction. It front-loads the core function and avoids fluff. Every sentence adds 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?

Despite having no annotations and only one parameter, the description covers the tool's purpose, outputs, and usage timing. It does not full describe the return structure (output schema exists), but for a planning tool, it provides sufficient context for selection.

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 sole parameter 'workbook_name' is self-explanatory, but the description does not explicitly clarify its role. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate, but the parameter is simple enough that missing detail is a minor gap.

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's purpose: it plans a Monte Carlo risk model from a deterministic workbook. It distinguishes itself from siblings by positioning itself as a 'one-call blueprint' to run first, contrasting with more specific action tools like insert_distribution or run_simulation.

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 explicitly instructs 'Run this first when asked to add uncertainty or make this a risk model.' It also notes that it's read-only, providing clear context for when to use this tool versus other more granular tools.

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