plan

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 does disclose outputs (net demand/output, leftover feed, internal loops, total EU/t, per-step runs/s, machines, overclock, machine count), which is useful behavioral context, but it never states whether the tool is a pure computation with no side effects.

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?

Dense but front-loaded: purpose first, then parameter syntax, then mode semantics, then outputs. It is appropriately sized for a complex nested-schema tool, though the run-on style mixes prose with field syntax and slightly taxes readability.

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 complex tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description is substantial: it explains inputs, the steps object, the three modes, and the return contents. The main gap is the undocumented top-level format and voltage parameters.

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, and it largely does: it documents the feed={item: rate/s} shape and the full steps item schema (id, mode, share, drive, target, machine, parallel, voltage, runs, perfect) plus mode semantics. Only the top-level format and voltage parameters are left unexplained.

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 name "plan" is generic, and the description's opening "自动配平产线" (automatically balance a production line) does state a concrete function, but never differentiates it from the very similar siblings balance, balance_v, and trace. An agent can infer it computes a balanced production plan, but not why it should pick this over its near-duplicates.

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 use/make/runs mode explanations describe how steps behave, but there is no guidance on when to choose this tool over balance, balance_v, or trace, and no prerequisites are stated. Usage is implied through the internal mode semantics rather than any when/when-not framing.

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