plan_code

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 discloses the output's form ('share string') but does not state whether the tool returns a string, copies it, prints it, or has any side effects. The behavioral contract is under-specified.

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 very short and front-loads the core idea, with no redundant information. The grammar is slightly awkward ('The plan as...'), but the two fragments together are efficient and easily scanned.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description should make both the invocation effect and return behavior explicit. It names the output and a use case, but it does not clarify how the agent receives the string or what happens on invocation. The zero-parameter surface keeps this gap moderate.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters and the schema is complete, so there are no parameter semantics that the description needs to clarify. The 0-parameter baseline of 4 applies.

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 identifies the resource and result: the plan as the site's share string, and it is clearly paste-able. However, it lacks an explicit verb such as 'get' or 'export', so the tool's action is implied rather than stated. It also does not distinguish plan_code from the closely related sibling plan_load_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 phrase 'Paste-able into the builder's draft or another tool' gives a concrete use case, so an agent can infer when to call it. However, it does not name alternatives, state when not to use it, or explain how plan_code differs from plan_load_code or plan_save.

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