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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, but the description goes well beyond that. It adds behavioral details such as 'dependency-aware,' keeping 'CLI fit, orchestration, permissions, handoff context, and verification separate,' and the 'continuity-first' routing policy. It also explicitly states what the tool will not do (claim benchmark superiority, launch another CLI, bypass permissions), which is valuable boundary-setting. No contradiction with annotations.

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 two dense sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the primary action and scope; the second adds constraints and routing policy. Every clause contributes meaningful detail: read-only, dependency-aware, separation of concerns, continuity-first, and explicit exclusions. This is exemplary conciseness for a tool with 10 parameters.

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's complexity (10 params, enums, exact system) and that an output schema exists, the description does a strong job of establishing the tool's purpose, behavioral boundaries, and routing policy. It lacks explicit parameter guidance, but that is partially covered by the schema (even if descriptions are sparse). The mental model it provides is sufficient for an agent to decide when to use it and roughly what inputs to provide, though a little more on how to structure workstreams would push it to a 5.

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 only 10% (only current_cli has a description), so the description must compensate. It barely touches on parameters: it mentions 'workstream' and 'dated-catalog model' but does not explain the meaning of key parameters like strategy, orchestration_mode, risk_tolerance, workstreams, or available_clis. The agent is left to infer most parameter semantics from enum values and names, which is insufficient for a 10-parameter tool.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Create a read-only, dependency-aware work plan across Claude Code, Codex, and Grok Build.' This clearly states what the tool does and differentiates it from sibling tools like worlds_get_cli_command or worlds_compare_cli_workflows, which are more about retrieval or comparison. The additional clause about routing and exclusions further cements its unique role as a planning tool.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: when planning work across multiple CLIs (Claude Code, Codex, Grok Build). It also states exclusions: 'does not claim benchmark superiority, launch another CLI, or enable permission bypass,' which tells the agent when not to invoke it. However, it does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools for those excluded cases, so it falls short of a full 5.

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