Squad Plan

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals key traits: planning is non-parallel, lands no change without confirmation, returns the Coordinator persona, matched routing, and a framed dispatch request. This goes well beyond a minimal statement and tells the agent exactly what to expect.

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 (about three sentences), front-loaded with the primary purpose, and every sentence adds value: what it does, how it behaves, and when to use it. No filler or redundancy.

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 the tool's complexity (7 parameters, 1 required, no output schema), the description discloses the return format (Coordinator persona, routing, dispatch request) and the non-parallel/confirm behavior. It does not enumerate all optional parameters but the schema covers them. Slightly lacking explicit alternatives for sibling tools, but overall sufficient for selection and invocation.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add significant meaning beyond the schema; it mentions 'request' implicitly as the work to plan, but does not elaborate on optional parameters, enums, or formatting. It does not compensate further, so a 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description clearly states the tool runs the squad's planning stage, with a specific verb ('Run') and resource ('squad's planning stage'). It further specifies the action: route to Squad Lead at 'confirm' tier to break down, sequence, and produce a plan. It distinguishes from siblings by emphasizing planning and non-parallel execution, and lists trigger phrases like 'plan', 'break down', 'sequence', 'design 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?

Provides explicit trigger phrases for when to use the tool ('Use for...'), and implies the context of planning before execution. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, missing a clear exclusion guidance.

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