Plan a task against the rack

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

The annotations provide only a title, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the planner is a deterministic stub, lists candidates only, does not execute downstream tools, is read-only with respect to the rack, and makes no network calls. This is unusually transparent.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by behavioral constraints and usage guidance. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundant restating of the tool name or schema.

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 two-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose, behavior, limitations, and usage sequencing. The agent has everything needed to decide when to call it and what to expect.

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 the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds context about the overall task-routing purpose but does not add new parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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 a specific verb-resource pair ('produce a routing plan for a natural-language task against the current rack') and immediately clarifies the current behavior (deterministic stub that lists candidate servers). This clearly distinguishes it from rack-management siblings like rack_add and rack_remove.

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 says 'Use after rack_add' and 'Not a substitute for status', giving both sequencing and an exclusion. It also tells the agent that the planner does not execute downstream tools, so the agent knows not to expect execution side effects.

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