plan

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

No annotations are provided. The description states 'without editing files', indicating it is non-destructive. However, it does not disclose other behavioral aspects such as side effects (e.g., if it saves state), required permissions, or behavior on timeout. With zero annotation coverage, the description carries the full burden but only partially addresses it.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose. Every sentence adds value: purpose and a timeout recommendation. No unnecessary information.

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?

The tool has 8 parameters and no annotations. The description omits explanations of key parameters (e.g., prompt, files, model) and does not clarify the plan's output format despite an output schema. It is insufficient for an agent to correctly invoke the tool without additional knowledge.

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?

The input schema has 8 parameters with only 13% coverage (repo_root described in schema). The tool description adds no parameter documentation whatsoever, leaving the agent to guess the meaning of prompt, files, model, etc. Given low schema coverage, the description must compensate but fails to do so.

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 'Break down a task and propose a scoped plan without editing files', which clearly identifies the action (break down, propose), the resource (a scoped plan), and distinguishes from siblings like build (edits files) or brainstorm (generates ideas).

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 provides a recommended timeout, which helps in usage, but does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like brainstorm or build. No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance besides the implication from 'without editing files'.

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