PlanManager MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'Add a step' which implies a write/mutation operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like permissions needed, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or what happens on success/failure. The description adds minimal context beyond the basic action.

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 appropriately sized with a clear opening sentence followed by parameter explanations. Every sentence earns its place by defining the tool and its parameters. However, the parameter explanations are in a different language (Chinese) which may affect clarity in some contexts, and the structure could be more front-loaded with key usage 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?

Given 5 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, but an output schema exists, the description is moderately complete. It covers all parameters semantically but lacks behavioral context for a mutation tool. The output schema reduces need to explain return values, but more guidance on usage and error handling would improve completeness.

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. It lists all 5 parameters with brief explanations in Chinese, adding meaning beyond the schema's titles (e.g., '父计划的id' clarifies plan_id is for parent plans, '何时应该完成此步骤' explains scheduled_at timing). However, it doesn't provide format details (e.g., ISO 8601 for scheduled_at is only in schema title) or usage examples, leaving gaps.

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 action ('Add a step') and the target resource ('to an existing plan'), specifying it's a sub-task. It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_plan' by focusing on adding to existing plans rather than creating new ones. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from tools like 'update_plan_status' that might also modify plans.

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 doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., plan must exist), exclusions, or compare to sibling tools like 'create_plan_batch' or 'guided_plan_creation'. Usage is implied by the action but lacks explicit context.

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