round_2

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 discloses that the tool performs peer-review and writes a revised plan, but does not explain what happens to previous plans or how the revision is processed. This is adequate but not fully transparent.

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, well-structured sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose and prerequisite. No unnecessary words or filler.

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 that there are two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main action and prerequisite. However, it lacks details on what happens if the prerequisite is not met, and does not describe the output or side effects. More completeness would be beneficial.

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 coverage is 100%, and the description adds minimal value beyond the schema: it explains that modelName affects the plan file name and that plan is the revised content. This meets the baseline for a well-documented schema.

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 specifies that the tool starts Round 2, which involves peer-reviewing Round 1 plans and writing a revised master plan. It also includes a prerequisite condition (requires ≥2 Round 1 plans), effectively distinguishing it from siblings like round_1 and final_plan.

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 states the prerequisite of having at least two Round 1 plans, providing clear context for when to use the tool. However, it does not mention when not to use it or suggest alternatives, but the name and context imply the sequential usage.

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