PlanManager MCP Server

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 states this is a creation tool (implying mutation) but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether it's idempotent, error handling, or what happens on success/failure. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the basic 'create' action, leaving significant gaps for a mutation tool.

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 efficiently structured: a clear purpose statement, usage context, and parameter explanations with a helpful example. Every sentence adds value, and it's front-loaded with the core functionality. The 'Args:' section organizes parameter details without redundancy.

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's complexity (mutation with 4 parameters, no annotations), the description is moderately complete. It covers purpose, usage, and most parameters but lacks behavioral details (e.g., permissions, side effects). The presence of an output schema means return values don't need explanation, but for a creation tool with no annotations, more behavioral transparency 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates well by explaining all 4 parameters: 'name' (name of main plan), 'children' (JSON string of step objects with example), and 'category' (category for plan and children). It clarifies that 'children' must be a JSON string (not just any string) and provides a concrete example. However, it omits the 'description' parameter entirely, preventing a perfect score.

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 purpose: 'Create a plan with multiple steps in one go.' It specifies the verb ('create'), resource ('plan'), and scope ('with multiple steps'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'create_plan' (singular) and 'create_study_plan' (specific type). The examples ('Weekly Study Plan', '21-Day Challenge') further clarify the use case.

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 clear context for when to use this tool: 'Useful for generating full schedules like...' It implies this is for batch creation of multi-step plans, suggesting alternatives like 'create_plan' for single-step plans. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific sibling alternatives, keeping it at a 4.

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