create_plan

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes what the tool does in 'Planning Mode' (e.g., analyzes codebase context, generates structured plans, creates diagrams) and outputs (e.g., human-readable summary, JSON, persistence via plan_id). It covers key behavioral traits like scope, risks, and dependencies, though it doesn't mention performance aspects like rate limits or error handling.

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 well-structured with clear sections (e.g., 'When to use this tool,' 'What you get'), making it easy to scan. It's appropriately sized for a complex tool, but some sentences could be more concise, such as the bulleted lists which are detailed but slightly verbose. Overall, it's front-loaded with the core purpose and efficiently organized.

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 (9 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is quite complete. It explains the tool's behavior, usage context, and outputs in detail, compensating for the lack of structured fields. However, it doesn't cover all edge cases, such as error scenarios or specific limitations, which could enhance completeness for a tool of this scope.

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 schema already documents all 9 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no specific parameter information beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining 'task' or 'max_context_files' in more detail. However, it implies context usage through phrases like 'Analyzes the codebase context,' which loosely relates to parameters like 'max_context_files' and 'context_token_budget,' but doesn't add substantial semantic value.

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 purpose: 'Generate a detailed implementation plan for a software development task.' It specifies the verb ('generate') and resource ('implementation plan'), and distinguishes it from siblings like 'execute_plan', 'refine_plan', or 'visualize_plan' by focusing on creation rather than execution, modification, or visualization.

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 includes an explicit 'When to use this tool' section with four bullet points, such as 'Before starting a complex feature or refactoring task' and 'When you need to understand the scope and approach.' It provides clear context for when to use this tool versus alternatives, though it doesn't explicitly name sibling tools like 'refine_plan' or 'execute_plan'.

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