plan_work

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It only mentions 'locked' without explaining what that entails (e.g., side effects, state changes, approval requirements, or reversibility). No information about the output or consequences of calling the tool is provided.

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 description is a single short sentence, which is concise, but it is under-specified rather than efficiently informative. It lacks substantive detail, so it does not earn its place as a helpful description; it reads more like a placeholder.

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?

Given the tool has three parameters with no schema descriptions, no annotations, and an output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain parameter semantics, return values, or usage context, leaving the agent with insufficient information to call the tool correctly.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, but it does not reference any of the actual parameters (objective, quality, reasoning_effort). Instead, it mentions 'prompt, budget, and model' which are not in the schema, potentially misleading the agent. No value is added to parameter understanding.

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 states a verb ('prepare') and resource ('project planning') and mentions specific elements ('prompt, budget, and model locked'), but it is vague about what 'locked' means and how this differs from sibling tools like prepare_task or route_task. It doesn't clearly specify the tool's core function beyond a general planning action.

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 is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any conditions, exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools, leaving the agent without direction on selecting this over other planning-related tools.

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