plan_new

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of explaining side effects, but it does not say whether starting an empty plan discards the current plan, overwrites anything, or interacts with undo/redo or persistence. It only discloses that world must be null.

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 a single, focused sentence that front-loads the main action and adds only a relevant parameter qualification. Every word contributes value; there is no repetition or filler.

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 state-changing tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin. It omits side effects on the current plan and how plan_new relates to sibling plan_* tools. A few additional words about what happens to existing plan state would make it adequate.

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 schema provides no description for the world parameter (0% coverage), so the description compensates by stating that world is null for the open pad and that v1 only supports the open pad. This gives some meaning, but it does not explain what the open pad is or what other world values might exist.

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 states a specific action ('Start') and resource ('an empty plan'), making the core purpose clear. It doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from sibling plan tools like plan_load or plan_list, but the 'empty' qualifier helps establish that it creates a fresh plan.

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?

No explicit guidance is given on when to choose plan_new over alternatives such as plan_load, plan_list, or plan_save. The only usage hint is the world parameter constraint, which is more about parameter semantics than about when to use the tool.

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