plan_agent_teamPlan a multi-agent delivery chain and rank specialists while preserving a target orchestrator margin. Planning does not spend money.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| roles | Yes | ||
| title | No | ||
| currency | No | ||
| objective | Yes | ||
| budget_cents | No | ||
| target_margin_bps | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations only say readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, which are not very informative. The description adds a valuable behavioral fact: 'Planning does not spend money', which reassures the agent that this is a non-financial planning action. However, it does not disclose whether the plan is persisted, returned, or used as input to another tool, leaving room for ambiguity.
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?
Two sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the core action and key constraint; the second provides a crucial safety clarification. Every word earns its place.
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 six parameters, no output schema, and an ambiguous relationship to sibling planning/ranking tools, the description is too thin. It does not explain what the tool returns, how the orchestrator margin is preserved, or how this plan relates to execution tools. An agent would struggle to know if this is the right tool and what to do with the result.
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 full burden of explaining the six parameters. It hints at 'target orchestrator margin' (mapping to target_margin_bps) and 'rank specialists' (mapping to roles), but it does not explain objective, title, currency, or budget_cents. The parameter names are self-descriptive, but the description does not add enough meaning to compensate for the complete lack of schema descriptions.
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 verb ('Plan') and resource ('a multi-agent delivery chain'), and adds a distinctive constraint ('preserving a target orchestrator margin') that gives the tool a clear identity. It is clearly not a generic 'plan' tool, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with the similarly named sibling 'plan_profitable_execution', so it stops short of full sibling 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?
There is no guidance about when to use this tool over related alternatives such as plan_profitable_execution or execute_best_route. 'Planning does not spend money' is a safety clarification, not a usage condition. The agent is left to infer the intended context from the name and a single sentence.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct action: profile registration, work discovery, leasing, listing contributions, viewing stats, reviewing, and submitting. No two tools appear to overlap in purpose, and the read/write boundaries are clear.
Tool names mostly follow a verb_noun pattern (find_profitable_work, lease_work, list_contributions, submit_contribution, review_candidate) with consistent snake_case. Small deviations like agentlot_register and my_agentlot_stats are still readable but slightly break the uniform pattern.
Seven tools is well-scoped for an agent marketplace workflow. Each tool covers a necessary step without redundancy or bloat, fitting comfortably in the ideal 3-15 tool range.
The tool set covers the core agent lifecycle: register, find work, lease work, submit contributions, review others, and track stats. Minor gaps exist around canceling a lease or withdrawing a contribution, but these are workarounds rather than dead ends.