plan_terraform_service

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'preview[s] changes without applying them,' which implies it is non-destructive and read-only, but it does not cover other critical behaviors such as authentication requirements (e.g., SSH credentials), potential side effects, rate limits, or output format. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with multiple parameters.

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, clear sentence that efficiently conveys the core functionality without unnecessary details. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and avoids redundancy, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 the complexity of a Terraform planning tool with 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on behavioral aspects (e.g., authentication, side effects), usage context, and what the output entails (e.g., a plan summary or error handling). This makes it incomplete for effective agent use.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, meaning all parameters are documented in the input schema. The description does not add any additional meaning or context beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it does not explain how 'config_override' interacts with Terraform or the purpose of 'service_name'). Thus, it meets the baseline of 3, as the schema handles the parameter documentation adequately.

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: 'Generate a Terraform plan to preview changes without applying them.' It specifies the action (generate a Terraform plan) and the resource (service), but does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like 'destroy_terraform_service' or 'refresh_terraform_service', which is why it scores 4 instead of 5.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention sibling tools like 'deploy_infrastructure' or 'destroy_terraform_service', nor does it specify prerequisites or contexts for usage, leaving the agent without clear direction.

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