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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the 'non-mutating' wording largely restates structured data. The description does confirm the tool produces a plan rather than performing the connection, which adds a little context, but nothing about plan content, freshness, or failure modes.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though arguably so terse that it leaves behavioral questions unanswered for a planning tool.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. For a one-optional-parameter tool with 100% schema coverage, the description is adequate, though it omits any indication of sibling selection or plan scope.

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 100% and the single enum parameter is fully documented in the schema, including the note that the plan is never executed. The description merely echoes the three target workflows, adding no syntax or behavioral detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (return) and resource (next-step plan) and scopes it to three workflows: repository, evaluation, trace. However, it does not distinguish itself from the sibling project.inspect, which an agent might reasonably confuse with planning versus inspecting.

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?

The phrase 'next-step plan' implies the usage situation (you want guidance rather than execution), but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of project.inspect or other siblings. Usage must be inferred from the purpose statement.

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