generate_plan

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

No annotations are present, so the description must fully explain behavioral traits. It only states the high-level purpose without disclosing whether the tool is read-only, what side effects occur, or any authentication/rate-limiting implications. It does not describe the output or error behavior.

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 concise at one sentence, but it sacrifices clarity for brevity. It is front-loaded with the verb, but the lack of detail means it is not appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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?

Given that the tool has a nested object parameter and an output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not elaborate on what the output contains, how the task object should be structured, or the differences between the two input modes (dictionary vs paths). This leaves the agent under-informed.

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 sole parameter 'task' is described in the schema as an object with additionalProperties true, but the description adds that it can be a 'task dictionary' or 'existing domain/problem PDDL paths,' providing some semantic context. However, it does not clarify the structure or format of these alternatives, leaving ambiguity.

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 'Plan from a task dictionary or existing domain/problem PDDL paths,' which identifies the verb 'plan' and the resources (task dictionary or paths). However, it does not clearly distinguish itself from sibling tool 'plan_from_text,' which likely also generates plans. The phrase 'plan from' is ambiguous as to whether 'plan' is a noun or verb.

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 usage guidance is provided. The description does not specify when to use this tool over alternatives like 'plan_from_text' or 'validate_config,' nor does it mention prerequisites or context where this tool is appropriate.

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