art.pipeline.plan

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose useful behavioral details: 7 stages, silhouette-first ordering, and QA checkpoints. But it does not say whether the plan is returned only, whether other artifacts are mutated, or how the plan is structured beyond those traits.

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?

Two concise sentences with no filler. The main action and output are front-loaded, followed by scoping detail. The composition is tight and scannable.

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 are only two parameters, both fully documented, and the tool's behavior is explained, the description is largely sufficient for an agent to invoke it. It lacks an output schema or explicit return-value description, but the plan definition and QA checkpoints give adequate context.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already documents; it only reinforces the reference_id-to-spec relationship.

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 names a specific verb ('Build') and resource ('7-stage ArtPlan') and clarifies the input ('ArtSpecification') and output concept ('stages with QA checkpoints'). It is clearly distinguishable from similar pipeline and detail tools, though it doesn't explicitly contrast itself with siblings such as art.production.plan or art.pipeline.plan's scope.

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 'from an ArtSpecification' implies the tool is used after a specification exists, so an agent can infer the basic when-to-use. However, it gives no explicit guidance on when not to use it, nor does it name alternatives like art.pipeline.analyze or art.production.plan.

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