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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits, but it only mentions the core function. It does not state whether the operation is read-only, whether it has side effects, whether any prerequisites are required (e.g., existing task_structure), or what happens on failure. This is a significant gap for a planning tool that likely consumes multiple stateful inputs.

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 that states the action immediately and contains no filler. It is appropriately sized, though it could be a bit more specific without becoming bloated.

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?

The tool has five parameters, including a required task_structure_id and several optional but likely relevant inputs, yet the description explains none of them. It also lacks any discussion of when this complex planning tool should be invoked or what preconditions apply. The output schema exists, so return format is covered, but the input side and workflow context are severely under-specified.

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 by explaining the parameters. It does not reference goal, method, horizon, current_state, or task_structure_id directly, and its vague mention of 'candidate rollouts' and 'constraint pruning' does not map to any specific input. The agent receives no practical guidance for filling these fields.

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 clearly identifies the action (synthesize the best verified plan) and the scope (across candidate rollouts, uncertainty tracking, and constraint pruning). It does not explicitly contrast it with siblings like cognitive.plan_with_counterfactuals, which is nearly identical in name, so it falls short of full differentiation.

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 gives no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as cognitive.plan_with_counterfactuals or cognitive.counterfactual_what_if. It only states what it does without any 'use when' or 'prefer instead' conditions, leaving the agent to infer selection criteria.

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