final_plan_context

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 states that it gets a prompt with injected plans but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as side effects, authorization needs, or whether it modifies state. Given it's a 'get' operation, it could explicitly mention non-destructiveness.

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 that is concise and front-loaded with the verb and resource. Every word adds value, and there is no wasted text.

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?

The tool has no parameters, output schema, or annotations. The description sufficiently explains what it does and when to use it. It could potentially add more detail about the prompt format, but it is complete enough for a simple retrieval tool.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so no parameter explanation is needed. The description does not add parameter semantics, but given zero parameters, a baseline of 4 is appropriate.

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 'Get' and the resource 'Final round prompt' with specific context of containing ALL Round 1 + Round 2 plans, and advises to call it before generating the final plan. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'final_plan' and 'round_1_context'.

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 explicitly says 'call this before generating the final plan', providing clear timing context. However, it does not include explicit when-not-to-use instructions or name alternatives, though the sibling tool names imply the workflow.

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