Generate full automation plan

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and it does clarify that the tool produces a plan and that agents should execute work items, implying no execution side effects. However, it is silent on file writes via reportPath, required permissions, and the exact shape of the output, so behavioral disclosure is only partial.

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 short, front-loaded with the deliverable, and contains no filler. The second sentence is an operational directive rather than tool documentation, but it is compact and non-redundant.

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 six-parameter tool with no annotations, no output schema, and many related siblings, this description is incomplete: it does not explain where the plan is written, how parameters control scope, or how this tool relates to generate_layer_brief and generate_playwright_brief. It leaves too much for the agent to infer.

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 only 17% and the description does not compensate: cwd, base, workspace, reportPath, and includeUntracked are never given meaning. Only mode has a schema description, so an agent has almost no information to set these parameters confidently.

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?

States a specific verb ('Produce') and a concrete deliverable ('complete, ordered plan') with enumerated contents (per-gap briefs for unit/integration/component plus Playwright MCP prompts). This makes it easy to distinguish from sibling brief generators, which each target a single layer.

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 phrase 'complete, ordered plan' implies this is the full-plan tool, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given. An agent must infer the relationship to generate_layer_brief and generate_playwright_brief rather than being told when to choose the aggregated plan over individual briefs.

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