Set Plan

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It reveals two key behaviors: the target_count constraint on ending sessions and the side-effect of an accompanying web search. However, it does not mention whether this tool mutates state, requires authentication, or has side effects beyond the stated ones, leaving gaps in the behavioral picture.

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, using three short sentences that front-load the core purpose. It avoids unnecessary verbosity, though the phrase 'rides along' is informal and could be clearer. The structure is efficient, but it lacks a logical separation between the primary purpose and the behavioral constraints.

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?

For a tool with six parameters and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It explains a few specific behaviors but does not clarify how the plan integrates with related tools like mark_step, record_finding, or end_session, nor does it describe the output or expected response. An agent would struggle to understand the full lifecycle and prerequisites for using this tool correctly.

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 for the missing parameter documentation. It explicitly explains target_count and search_query, and implicitly refers to steps, but leaves goal, device, and deliverable completely unexplained. This partial coverage is insufficient for a tool with six parameters, especially since the schema provides no descriptions.

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 primary action ('Start a plan checklist'), giving a specific verb and resource. It does not explicitly distinguish from siblings like 'run_task' or 'mark_step', but the added behavioral details imply a distinct role in orchestrating a task plan. The term 'plan checklist' is somewhat ambiguous but still understandable.

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. It mentions conditions like target_count and search_query but does not explain when a user should invoke this tool instead of other plan-related tools. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or typical use cases.

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