design_feature

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the key behaviors: the plan is 'shown to the user inline for review' and the agent must 'WAIT for explicit user confirmation before writing code.' This effectively communicates that the tool is non-implementing and gated on user approval, though it stopsshort of stating explicit side-effect or return-value details.

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 short sentences, zero filler, and the most important instruction is front-loaded. Each sentence adds distinct value: when to use it, what it produces, and the critical wait-for-confirmation behavior.

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?

For a planning-only tool, the description captures the essential workflow: generate plan, display it, wait for confirmation. It does not specify what happens after confirmation or describe output structure, but the absence of an output schema is partially mitigated by the statement that the plan is shown inline.

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 adequately describes all three parameters. The description does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond that, but the baseline of 3 is appropriate because no compensation is necessary.

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 uses a specific verb phrase 'create a structured plan with edge case analysis' tied to a clear resource ('new system'), and explicitly places it before implementation. This clearly distinguishes it from the many sibling tools that actually write, compile, or modify code.

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 opening 'Before implementing ANY new system' gives a clear, explicit trigger condition for when this tool should be used. It does not name specific alternative tools or list when-not-to-use cases, but the context strongly implies this is the planning gate before any implementation work.

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