skill_plan

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the burden. It does disclose meaningful behavior: the planning process follows deliberately decompose-retrieve-compose, and without an LLM it falls back to capability closure graph search. That is useful beyond the schema. It still omits information about side effects, whether the plan is stored or merely returned, and what happens in failure cases, so it is only partially transparent.

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 compact sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core action ('把任务规划成 skill 组合的 workflow DAG') and then adds relevant pipeline details in parentheses. The phrasing is somewhat dense and technical, but every part carries meaning.

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 that there is no output schema, no parameter descriptions, and a nested object parameter, this definition leaves significant gaps. It tells the agent the shape of the output in the abstract (a workflow DAG), but not the concrete return format, how to populate context, or how planning interacts with the sibling tools. An agent would likely need additional tool calls or documentation to invoke it safely and 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 for both parameters. It only glosses the 'task' concept through the phrase '把任务规划成', and says nothing about the 'context' object, its expected structure, or its role in planning. The nested object parameter is completely unaddressed, leaving the agent to guess what context is required.

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 clearly names the verb-action (plan), the object (task), and the produced artifact (workflow DAG of skill combinations). It also reveals the high-level pipeline (decompose-retrieve-compose), giving the agent a concrete sense of what the tool does. However, it does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like skill_search or workflow_run, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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 description tells what the tool does but not when the agent should pick it over alternatives. There is no mention of skill_search, skill_run, or workflow_run, and no exclusion criteria such as 'use workflow_run if the DAG already exists'. The mention of 'when no LLM is available' is an implementation condition, not usage guidance.

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