Plan presentation

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns a planId and what the plan contains (outline, time budgets, slide stubs, enrichment queries). However, it does not mention side effects like whether it creates or overwrites a plan, whether it requires existing materials/scope, or any rate limits. This partial disclosure is adequate but not comprehensive.

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, clear sentence with no filler or redundancy. It front-loads the core action and output, making it easy to parse quickly. Every phrase adds value.

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 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, so a robust description is critical. This description gives only a high-level overview and omits parameter semantics, prerequisites, and relations to sibling tools. It is inadequate for an agent to confidently invoke the tool without additional guessing.

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 description does not mention any of the 5 parameters (style, scopeId, maxSlides, materialsId, targetDurationMin) and schema description coverage is 0%. It vaguely hints at time budgets and slide stubs but does not map these to parameters. The agent must infer meaning solely from parameter names, which for scopeId and materialsId is insufficient.

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 states the tool's function: 'Build the section outline with per-section time budgets and slide stubs, plus enrichment queries (research gaps).' It also mentions the return value (planId). This distinguishes it from siblings like generate_deck or define_scope, as it focuses on planning the structure rather than final rendering or scoping.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., needing define_scope first) or postconditions (e.g., feeding into enrich_plan or render_deck). There is no explicit 'when to use' or 'when not to use' context.

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