ba_plan

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

The description discloses that declaring is idempotent and retiring stops a topic from gating stability, and that the tool returns the current open plan. However, with no annotations, it lacks details on side effects, authorization needs, or what happens to the topics beyond these statements.

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 concise, with two sentences that effectively convey purpose and key behavioral traits. No redundant or unnecessary information is present.

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 complexity of the input schema (nested array with anyOf), no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain key terms like 'coverage topics', 'floor', or 'gating stability', nor does it clarify the expected structure of the return value.

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 does not explain the parameters 'projectRoot' or 'operations'. While it mentions 'declare or retire', this maps to the 'op' field but provides no details on the input schema structure or how to construct the operations array. With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to add value for 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: declaring or retiring agent/user coverage topics. It explains the two operations (declare and retire) and distinguishes the resource as 'the visible, steerable coverage plan on top of the floor'. This specificity differentiates it from sibling 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 implies usage context (managing a coverage plan) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. No sibling comparisons or exclusions are provided.

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