Plan template adoption

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds that it 'returns an exact clone and setup plan', implying it is a safe, read-only operation. It doesn't go beyond annotations by detailing what happens if the template doesn't exist or other edge cases, so it's adequate but not enriched.

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 with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the key action and resource, and the optional variant is appended concisely.

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 tool has a simple 2-parameter input, a clear output schema (implied by 'exact clone...plan'), and robust annotations, the description is nearly complete. It could elaborate on the return format or edge cases (e.g., missing template) but current info suffices for selection and basic invocation.

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% (both parameters are documented in the schema). The description mentions 'name' and 'built palette variant slug' in general terms, but adds no new meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., no format, constraints, or examples). Baseline 3 is correct when schema covers all parameters.

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 ('Return') and resource ('clone and setup plan for a complete template'), and distinguishes itself from siblings like 'find_component' or 'install_plan' by focusing on producing a plan from a template name, not executing or searching.

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 clearly states what it does (clone and plan setup) and includes an optional palette variant. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this tool vs. siblings like 'find_template' (for finding) or 'install_plan' (for installation), nor does it mention when not to use it. The context is clear but lacks exclusions or alternatives.

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