plan_goal

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that this produces a blueprint from a goal and optional spec, but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as whether it persists anything or how output is delivered. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with the core action stated first and no wasted words. It is highly scannable and immediately useful.

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?

The output schema and annotations cover return values and side-effect safety, while the description covers purpose and inputs. However, it lacks guidance on how planning relates to the sibling run-lifecycle tools and leaves spec_json semantics underspecified.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It paraphrases the parameters as 'high-level goal' and 'optional JSON spec', but does not explain the expected format of spec_json, its constraints, or how it influences the blueprint. This adds little beyond the parameter names themselves.

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 ('Generate'), a specific resource ('large-app execution blueprint'), and the inputs ('high-level goal and optional JSON spec'). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like create_run or resume_run, which concern run execution rather than planning.

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 implies an early planning use case but gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings such as checkpoint_run or create_run. It does not state ordering, prerequisites, or when planning is not appropriate.

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