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

No annotations and the description provides no behavioral context — no mention of what the plan output contains, whether it has side effects, permissions needed, or rate limits. The burden is fully on the description, and it discloses nothing.

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 single sentence is not verbose but is under-specified — 'conciseness' here is achieved by omitting rather than by tightening. There's nothing front-loaded because there's nothing to load.

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?

No annotations, no output schema, incomplete param coverage, and a description that says nothing beyond the name. For a planning tool amid dozens of sibling plan tools, this is completely inadequate to guide correct invocation.

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 coverage is 33% and the description adds no meaning beyond the schema. appType and requestedFeatures have brief descriptions; backendMode has an enum but no explanation of behavior differences between cloud/self-hosted/local. The description compensates for none of this.

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 restates the tool name ('integration.plan (planner)') without adding a verb or explaining what plan is produced. It hints at being a 'planner' for MediaSFU React Native Expo integration, but doesn't clarify how it differs from siblings like shared::integration.plan or shared::frontend.architecture.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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as shared::integration.plan, react-native::integration.plan, or other plan tools. The agent is left to guess based on the name alone.

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