Squad Plan

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses key behaviors: planning is non-parallel, no changes are landed without confirmation, and returns the Coordinator persona, matched routing, and a framed dispatch request. It does not cover auth needs or rate limits, but the return value detail is valuable.

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 four sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose and followed by supporting details. It is efficient but could be slightly tighter without losing clarity. Every sentence adds value, making it well-structured.

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, no output schema), the description adequately covers the workflow, routing, and return structure. It explains when to use it and how it operates, though it could elaborate on the meaning of the returned dispatch request for the host. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool.

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 extra meaning for individual parameters beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., 'request' is described simply as 'The work to plan this turn'). No additional context is given for parameters like 'mode', 'tier', or 'context' that would enhance understanding.

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 clearly states the tool's specific verb and resource: 'Run the squad's planning stage.' It elaborates on routing to Task Planner, breaking down tasks, sequencing work, and producing an implementation-ready plan, distinguishing it from sibling tools like squad_architect and squad_run by specifying use cases ('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?

The description explicitly lists trigger phrases: 'Use for "plan", "break down", "sequence", or "design plan" requests.' It also clarifies that planning is non-parallel and requires confirmation. However, it does not provide explicit exclusions or contrast with specific sibling tools, leaving some ambiguity about when not to use this tool.

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