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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It says nothing about whether this reads or writes, whether it requires prior preflight/credential state, what permissions it needs, whether it mutates project files, or what it returns. The single parenthetical "(planner)" is the only behavioral hint.

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?

It is short, but it is under-specified rather than concise — the entire string is a label, not a useful instruction. This is the LOW calibration pattern where brevity reflects missing content, not efficiency.

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?

For a 3-parameter planning tool with no annotations, no output schema, and incomplete parameter documentation, the description supplies none of the context an agent needs to invoke it confidently or distinguish it from its many siblings.

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 33%, so the description must compensate and does not. appType is documented only as "Application type." and the backendMode enum (cloud/self-hosted/local) has no description anywhere, nor does the description explain what choosing a backendMode implies for the plan output.

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 is essentially a restatement of the tool name plus a platform prefix and the word "planner." It conveys no verb or resource beyond what the identifier already says, and does not differentiate this tool from the near-identical flutter::integration.plan, swift::integration.plan, shared::integration.plan, or the dozen other integration.plan siblings.

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 when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative-routing guidance whatsoever. The description gives no indication of where "planner" fits in the workflow relative to siblings like feature.map, env.preflight, or sdk.recommend.

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