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 '快速创建' (quickly create) which implies a write/mutation operation, but doesn't disclose permissions needed, whether creation is reversible, rate limits, or what the output contains. For a creation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 front-loaded with the main purpose first, followed by parameter details. The Args section is well-structured with clear parameter explanations. Every sentence serves a purpose, though the Chinese-only text might limit accessibility in some contexts.

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 creates study plans (moderate complexity), has no annotations, but has an output schema (which reduces need to describe returns), the description is moderately complete. It covers parameters well but lacks behavioral context and usage differentiation from siblings. The presence of an output schema helps, but more context about the creation process would be beneficial.

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 in the Args section with clear examples and formats. It adds meaningful context beyond the bare schema, such as example subjects ('Python编程') and date format (YYYY-MM-DD), though it doesn't cover all possible constraints or validation rules.

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 as '快速创建学习计划模板' (quickly create study plan template), which specifies the verb 'create' and the resource 'study plan template'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_plan' by specifying 'study plan' rather than generic plans, though not explicitly contrasting with other plan-creation tools.

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 siblings like 'create_plan', 'guided_plan_creation', and 'create_travel_plan', there's no indication of when this specific study plan creation tool is appropriate or what differentiates it from other creation tools.

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