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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions the planning approach and says nothing about side effects, determinism, required preconditions, or what happens to the input state. For a tool that likely performs computation without side effects, this is a major gap.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the primary action and method. There is no fluff, and it is easy to read. However, its brevity limits the amount of useful information, though that is a completeness issue rather than a conciseness problem.

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 four parameters (two required), nested objects, and an output schema, the description is grossly insufficient. It does not explain the inputs, the output format, or any behavioral aspects, leaving an agent with only the tool name and schema to infer usage. The presence of an output schema does not compensate for the lack of contextual detail.

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%, and the description makes no mention of any of the four parameters (goal_tasks, initial_state, compound_tasks, primitive_operators). It does not clarify what 'high-level goals' maps to or how the optional compound tasks and operators are used, leaving the agent without any parameter-level guidance.

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 states a specific action ('decompose high-level goals into milestone subgoals') and identifies the method (HTN planning), making the core purpose clear. It does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling 'cognitive.hierarchical_plan', but the inclusion of the HTN method adds specificity.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as the similarly named 'cognitive.hierarchical_plan' or other cognitive planning tools. No context or exclusion criteria are given, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name and description alone.

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