yaaif_plan_dry_run

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the key side-effect guarantee ('without mutating the tenant') and the echo behavior. It does not describe output shape, error conditions, or what 'check catalog refs' entails, leaving meaningful behavioral gaps.

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 two short sentences with the core purpose front-loaded in the first clause. It contains no filler, though the second sentence about catalog refs is terse and could be more informative without adding much length.

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 three parameters, nested objects, zero schema description coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too thin. It lacks any explanation of the 'expected' parameter, what the tool returns, and how it relates to sibling plan tools, so an agent would have trouble invoking it correctly in non-trivial cases.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds some meaning for 'actions' ('intended tool calls') and partially for verify_catalog ('check catalog refs'), but completely omits the 'expected' parameter, which has a complex nested object structure. The description does not explain the action item shape or the meaning of expected lists, leaving agents to infer critical parameter semantics from the schema alone.

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 a specific action ('Dry-run an execution plan') and a concrete behavioral outcome ('echo intended tool calls without mutating the tenant'). It distinguishes the tool from execution-oriented siblings through the explicit no-mutation guarantee, though it does not name any sibling tool directly.

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 'dry-run' framing plus 'echo ... without mutating' gives a clear context for when to use this tool: to preview a plan safely before executing it. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like yaaif_plan_verify or yaaif_plan_execution_save, so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.

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