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 'create' which implies a write/mutation operation, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits: no information about permissions needed, whether creation is reversible, what happens on success/failure, rate limits, or what the created template includes beyond the input parameters. The description is minimal and lacks crucial behavioral context.

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 concise with a clear purpose statement followed by parameter documentation. The structure with 'Args:' section organizes parameter information efficiently. No unnecessary verbiage, though the parameter explanations could be slightly more informative without sacrificing conciseness.

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) and no annotations, the description is moderately complete for a creation tool. It covers the basic purpose and parameters but lacks important context: no behavioral transparency, no usage guidelines compared to siblings, and incomplete parameter semantics. For a 5-parameter creation tool with 0% schema coverage, this is the minimum viable level.

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 provides parameter names and brief examples/format hints in Chinese (e.g., '云南' for destination, 'YYYY-MM-DD' for dates), which adds some semantic value beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't explain the meaning of 'budget' (currency? per person/total?) or 'description' (what should it contain?), leaving significant gaps in parameter understanding.

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: '快速创建旅行计划模板' (quickly create travel plan template). It specifies the verb 'create' and the resource 'travel plan template', making the intent unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_plan' or 'guided_plan_creation', which appear to serve similar functions.

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 like 'create_plan', 'guided_plan_creation', and 'create_plan_batch', there's no indication of when this specific 'create_travel_plan' tool is preferred, what distinguishes it, or any prerequisites for usage.

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