martin_plan

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

The description declares 'read-only planning step,' which aligns with annotations (readOnlyHint: true, idempotentHint: true). It adds behavioral context about what the tool produces, such as 'implementation plan, verifier proposal, policy pack, and risk recommendation,' going beyond the annotations. No contradictions.

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 two sentences long and front-loaded with the most critical information. Every word adds value: first sentence defines purpose and outputs, second sentence provides usage context. No superfluous content.

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 tool's complexity (13 parameters, output schema present), the description covers the high-level purpose and usage context but lacks details on parameter effects. The output schema handles return values, but the low schema coverage and missing parameter explanations leave gaps. Adequate but not thorough.

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?

With schema description coverage at only 23%, the description should compensate by explaining key parameters. However, it does not mention any parameter beyond implying 'objective' as the input. Parameters like allowedPaths, maxFilesChanged, and verificationPlan are left unexplained, leaving the agent without guidance on their purpose.

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 tool's function: 'turns an objective into a scoped implementation plan, verifier proposal, policy pack, and risk recommendation.' It also distinguishes itself from siblings by specifying usage 'before preflight and before any real coding run,' making its role unique among the sibling tools.

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 this tool: 'Use before preflight and before any real coding run.' This provides clear context, though it does not elaborate on when not to use it or mention alternatives. The sibling list implies alternatives, but the description itself is sufficient for typical usage.

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