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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the entire behavioral burden, and it discloses nothing: not whether the call is read-only or mutating, whether it costs tokens/time, whether it requires credentials, or what it returns. '(planner)' hints at a planning operation but conveys no behavioral contract.

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 this is under-specification rather than conciseness - the single fragment spends its words repeating the tool name and its namespace. Nothing is front-loaded because nothing of substance is stated.

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 output schema, no annotations, three under-documented parameters, and a zero-feature description leave an agent with nothing to reason about before calling. For a planner tool in a large multi-platform toolset, this is completely inadequate.

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% (backendMode and requestedFeatures have no descriptions at all), and the description adds zero parameter meaning. With a low coverage schema and no compensating text, an agent cannot tell what backendMode values imply or what shape requestedFeatures entries should take.

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 a restatement of the namespaced tool name plus the word 'planner' - it never says what gets planned, for what artifact, or what the caller receives. It distinguishes nothing from siblings like feature.map, env.preflight, or app.scaffold, all of which also 'plan' or advise.

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 named alternative among the ~100 sibling tools. An agent has no basis for choosing integration.plan over shared::integration.plan, ui.mode.recommend, or sdk.recommend.

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