plan_request

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It introduces 'supervised' but does not explain what supervision entails (e.g., requiring approval steps). It omits side effects, permission needs, or whether changes are reversible. The description is too sparse to inform the agent about tool behavior beyond the basic action.

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 a single sentence of 10 words, making it very concise and front-loaded. However, it sacrifices essential content for brevity. While efficient, it lacks sufficient detail to be moderately useful.

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 3 parameters, an output schema, and siblings indicating a workflow, the description is insufficient. It does not clarify the plan creation process, the meaning of 'supervised,' or how parameters affect outcomes. The output schema may help, but the description does not hint at return values or context.

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%, and the description does not explain any parameters. The agent cannot infer the meaning or formatting of 'request,' 'target_area,' or 'dry_run' from the description alone. Parameter names and defaults in the schema provide minimal clues, but the description fails to add value.

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 verb 'Create' and identifies the specific output: 'supervised execution plan and run journal.' It distinguishes the tool's role from siblings like 'execute_plan' and 'approve_step' by focusing on planning rather than execution or approval. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives.

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 siblings. It does not mention that it should be called before 'execute_plan' or that it initiates a workflow. There are no prerequisites or context hints, leaving the agent without decision criteria.

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