martin_plan

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint and idempotentHint. The description reinforces the read-only nature, adds what the tool produces, and clarifies that it does not mutate files or replace the verifier. This adds useful behavioral context beyond the annotations, though idempotence is not explicitly discussed.

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?

Three sentences, with the core purpose front-loaded and no filler. Every sentence adds useful information about scope, usage boundaries, or next steps.

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?

Despite having an output schema and safety annotations, the tool is complex with 13 input parameters. The description gives a good workflow overview but does not explain how to choose or set the many constraint parameters, which are mostly undocumented at 23% schema coverage. An agent would struggle to construct a well-formed planning request.

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 23%, so the description must compensate for the many undocumented parameters. It mentions 'objective', 'scope', 'budget', and 'verifier', but does not map these to specific fields such as maxUsd, verificationPlan, policyPack, allowedPaths, or deniedPaths. Most parameters remain unexplained in both schema and description.

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 identifies this as a read-only planning step that converts an objective into concrete artifacts: bounded scope, verifier proposal, policy pack, and risk recommendation. It also differentiates itself from preflight and run by explicitly positioning itself before those phases.

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 when to use it ('before preflight/run' for 'authorized software changes'), when not to use it ('Do not use to mutate files or replace the verifier'), and what to do next ('call martin_preflight with the chosen scope, budget, and verifier'). This is exemplary guidance.

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