validate_plan

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

The readOnlyHint and destructiveHint annotations already convey that this is a safe, non-destructive operation. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond validation semantics and the return of policy decisions/digest, but does not explain any validation side effects or constraints. With annotations present, this is adequate but not rich.

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 wasted words. It covers the main purpose and return value efficiently, though it omits additional guidance that could improve usability.

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?

With an output schema present, return values do not need elaboration, and annotations cover safety. However, the description leaves the 'mode' parameter unexplained and gives no guidance about what constitutes a semantic plan or how this relates to sibling validation/execution tools. For a tool with 0% schema description coverage and a complex nested plan object, this is incomplete.

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 carries the burden of explaining parameters. It indicates the 'plan' is a semantic plan but does not describe the 'mode' parameter or any expected plan structure. This is insufficient for an agent to correctly populate the arguments.

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 ('Validate') and resource ('a semantic plan') and states the expected output ('policy decisions and digest'). It clearly identifies what the tool does, though it does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling validate tools like validate_command or validate_scenario.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as validate_command, validate_scenario, execute_plan, or schedule_plan. The context implies it is for validating plans before execution, but no explicit when/when-not guidance or alternatives are provided.

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