Plan Agent Design Governance

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

The description accurately represents the tool as a read-only evaluation, aligning with annotations (readOnlyHint=true). It adds behavioral detail by specifying the outputs (recommendations on patterns, evals, fixes, safeguards), which is useful beyond the annotation alone.

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 efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and key outputs. It is concise and front-loaded, though slightly dense. It could benefit from minor structural separation, but it earns its place.

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 the complexity (15 parameters, no output schema), the description provides a high-level overview but lacks detail on the exact format or nature of the recommendations. While parameters are well-described in schema, the absence of output schema means the description should offer more clarity on return structure, which it does not fully address.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The tool description does not add any additional meaning or context to the parameters beyond what is already provided in the schema. No parameter-specific elaboration is given.

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 it evaluates an agent workflow before adding tools, autonomy, or subagents, and specifies the recommendations (single-agent vs manager/decentralized patterns, evals, fixes, safeguards). This distinguishes it from sibling planning tools like plan_intent or plan_multimodal_retrieval which focus on different aspects.

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 when to use the tool ('before adding tools, autonomy, or subagents'), providing clear context for its application. It does not, however, mention when not to use it or list alternative tools, so it lacks explicit exclusions.

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