Plan an iOS app from a brief

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the bar is lower; the description adds concrete side-effect context with 'No files are created and no build is claimed.' This clarifies what the tool will not do, which is valuable beyond the annotation flags. There is no contradiction between the description and 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?

The description is two tight sentences with the core action and deliverable front-loaded. The second sentence earns its place by removing ambiguity about side effects. There is no filler or redundant restatement of the title.

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 read-only planning tool with no output schema, the description gives a high-level return type and non-effects, which is helpful but incomplete. It does not describe the shape or structure of the returned workflow/argument array, provide parameter-level guidance, or distinguish itself from closely related siblings like plan_app_icon. An agent could call it successfully with name and brief, but would be uncertain about the exact output contract.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the undocumented name and brief parameters; it only partially does so by referencing 'a named app' and the title's 'brief.' It does not explain what constitutes a valid brief, how name is used in planning, or how the two parameters interact. This leaves significant semantic ambiguity for an agent.

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 names a specific verb and deliverable: 'Return an implementation workflow and safe CLI argument array for a named app.' The title 'Plan an iOS app from a brief' reinforces the resource and purpose. It also separates itself from siblings like build_project and create_app by explicitly disclaiming file creation and build claims.

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 intended use is implied: the tool plans an iOS app from a brief and produces a workflow plus CLI args, which suggests use before implementation. However, it does not explicitly say when to prefer this over related siblings such as create_app, build_project, or plan_app_icon, nor does it provide exclusions or alternative routing. The context is clear enough but the comparative guidance is missing.

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