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 the tool creates a plan but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it requires authentication, what happens on success/failure, if it's idempotent, or what the output contains. For a creation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 and well-structured with a brief purpose statement followed by clearly labeled parameter explanations. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information, though the formatting with 'Args:' and bullet-like structure could be slightly cleaner.

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 the tool has an output schema (which handles return values), 6 parameters with good semantic coverage in the description, but zero annotations and no behavioral context, the description is moderately complete. It adequately explains what the tool does and what parameters mean, but misses important behavioral aspects for a creation tool.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by providing clear semantic explanations for all 6 parameters. Each parameter gets a Chinese description with concrete examples (e.g., '我要去云南旅行' for name, '旅行' for category), format specifications (ISO 8601), and usage context. This adds significant value beyond the bare schema.

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 creates a generic plan ('创建一个通用计划'), which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes itself from more specialized siblings like create_travel_plan and create_study_plan by being generic, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with them.

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. With multiple sibling tools for plan creation (create_plan_batch, create_travel_plan, create_study_plan, guided_plan_creation), there's no indication of when this generic version is preferred over specialized ones or batch operations.

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