review_plan

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the return shape ('approvals, risks, and improvement suggestions') and that evaluation is against KB documentation, but says nothing about whether the tool is read-only, what happens when the KB lacks coverage, cost/latency, or failure modes.

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?

Front-loaded one-line purpose, then scannable bullets, then a 'Returns:' line. Every element supports selection or invocation; only mild redundancy between the opening sentence and the bullet list.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, usage triggers, and the shape of the response, which is enough for an agent to call it correctly. Missing only edge-case behavior (KB misses, read-only guarantee, latency).

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 baseline is 3. The description reinforces 'proposal' ('Pass your proposed approach') but never mentions the required 'goal' parameter, so it adds essentially nothing beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Review your implementation plan against knowledge base documentation') plus scope ('before coding'). The framing of validating an existing plan versus producing one implicitly separates it from build_plan, verify_code_math, and search_knowledge.

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?

Explicit 'Use this tool when you:' block with three concrete conditions (validate a plan before executing, catch wrong framework assumptions, learn pitfalls). Clear positive guidance, but it never names a sibling alternative or an exclusion case (e.g., 'use build_plan if you have no plan yet').

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