yaaif_plan_verify

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The term 'diff' hints at a read-only comparison, but the description does not explicitly state whether the tool has side effects, what permissions are required, what the output format looks like, or how missing components are reported. This is a significant gap for a plan verification tool.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It clearly conveys the core operation and the scope of the diff in a compact form, which is ideal for quick agent scanning.

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 10-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It does not explain what the result of the diff looks like, how to interpret mismatches, or how this tool fits into the plan verification workflow. The agent would need external knowledge to use it confidently.

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 does map several parameter categories (agent_names, workflow_names, mcp_tool_names, local_tool_names), but it omits spec_id, spec_version, q, limit, and ambient_agent_names. It also refers to 'skill names' while the schema uses skill_ids, creating a mismatch. Half the parameters remain completely undocumented.

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 the specific verb 'Diff' and clearly identifies the resource: expected plan components (agent/skill/workflow/MCP/local-tool names) against the live tenant catalog. This distinguishes it from siblings like yaaif_plan_dry_run or yaaif_skill_validate by focusing on a comparison/verification action rather than execution or creation.

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 purpose implies when to use it (to verify that plan components exist in the tenant catalog), but there is no explicit guidance about when to choose this over related tools like yaaif_skill_validate or yaaif_agent_spec_drift_scan. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned, so the agent must infer usage from the description alone.

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