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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it discloses nothing. It does not say whether the tool is read-only or mutating, whether it generates artifacts or side effects, what permissions it needs, or when it validates or errors.

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 and front-loaded, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness. The single fragment carries no actionable information an agent could route on.

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 planning tool with no annotations, no output schema, and partially undocumented parameters, the description should explain the plan's scope and expected output shape. It supplies none of that, leaving the agent unable to predict what calling it returns or produces.

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%, and the description adds zero parameter context. It doesn't explain what appType should contain, what form a requestedFeature string takes, or how backendMode selection affects the resulting plan; the only support comes from the enum values in the schema itself.

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: 'MediaSFU Kotlin :: integration.plan (planner).' The only added token is 'planner', which hints at producing a plan but does not state what it plans, based on what inputs, or how it differs from siblings like env.preflight, feature.map, or sdk.recommend.

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?

No when-to-use guidance is given. There is no mention of prerequisites, ordering relative to sibling tools (e.g., before app.scaffold), or conditions under which an agent should call this instead of another planning/analysis tool.

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