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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it discloses nothing: not whether the tool is read-only, whether it produces a plan artifact, what happens with partial input, or what it returns. 'planner' is a label, not behavioral information.

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 the brevity reflects under-specification rather than economy. The single fragment carries no actionable content beyond namespacing.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is completely inadequate. An agent cannot know what a 'plan' contains, how inputs shape it, or how it relates to the other planning and scaffold tools.

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% (appType is vaguely documented, backendMode's enum is bare, requestedFeatures has only 'Required feature'), and the description adds no parameter meaning at all. It fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 the tool name plus the tag '(planner)'. It conveys only that this is a planning tool within the MediaSFU Flutter namespace, without stating what it plans or produces. It does not distinguish itself from siblings like flutter::feature.map or shared::integration.plan.

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 guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives. With ~14 sibling tools per platform and a parallel shared::integration.plan, an agent has no basis for choosing this tool.

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