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 mentions a 'step-by-step' process but does not disclose behavioral traits like whether it's interactive, requires user input during execution, modifies data, has side effects, or handles errors. This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.

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 brief and front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by parameter details. It avoids unnecessary elaboration, though the parameter section could be more integrated. Overall, it is efficient with minimal waste.

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, the description does not need to explain return values. However, with no annotations, 1 parameter at 0% schema coverage, and multiple sibling tools, the description is incomplete—it lacks details on behavior, differentiation, and full parameter context, making it only minimally adequate.

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?

The description lists 'plan_type' with enum values, adding meaning beyond the input schema which has 0% description coverage and only defines the parameter type. However, it does not explain what each plan type entails or how it affects the creation process, providing only basic semantic clarification.

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 states the tool '一步步帮助用户创建完整计划' (step-by-step helps users create complete plans), which provides a vague purpose without specifying what resources it operates on or how it differs from sibling tools like 'create_plan' or 'create_study_plan'. It mentions '引导式创建计划' (guided plan creation) but lacks specificity about the mechanism or outcome.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'create_plan' or 'create_study_plan'. The description implies a step-by-step process but does not specify contexts, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without clear usage instructions.

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