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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the basic action without disclosing behavioral traits. It doesn't mention permissions needed, whether the addition is reversible, how it affects the plan state, or any rate limits/constraints. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, with every part contributing essential information.

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 this is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral aspects (e.g., side effects, error handling) and doesn't compensate for the missing structured data, making it insufficient for safe and effective use by an agent.

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 schema fully documents all parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying parameters relate to a 'todo item', which is already clear from the schema. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage but doesn't 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 action ('Add') and resource ('new todo item to the current plan'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'update_todo_status' or 'save_plan', which would require more specific language about creation versus modification.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'update_todo_status' or 'save_plan'. It mentions 'current plan' but doesn't clarify prerequisites (e.g., whether a plan must be active) or exclusions, leaving usage context implied rather than explicit.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states 'Get all todos' but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, how it handles empty plans, or what the return format is. This is inadequate for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'current plan' means, how todos are returned, or any error conditions. For a tool that likely interacts with a planning system, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its full context.

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 tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameters to document. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, and it correctly doesn't mention any. A baseline of 4 is appropriate for zero parameters with full schema coverage.

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 action ('Get') and resource ('all todos in the current plan'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'update_todo_status' or 'save_plan', which might also involve todos, so it misses full sibling distinction.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a current plan), exclusions, or compare to siblings like 'add_todo' or 'remove_todo', leaving usage context unclear.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool removes a todo item, implying a destructive mutation, but doesn't clarify if this is permanent, reversible, requires specific permissions, or affects other plan components. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency, as it omits critical behavioral traits like side effects or error conditions.

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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the core action without unnecessary words. Every part ('Remove a todo item from the current plan') earns its place by specifying the verb, resource, and context, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick understanding.

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 as a destructive mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral aspects (e.g., permanence, permissions), output expectations, or error handling. While the purpose is clear, the context for safe and effective use is insufficient, especially compared to siblings that might offer more guidance or structured returns.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with 'todoId' clearly documented as the ID of the todo item to remove. The description adds no additional parameter details beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. Given the high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract from the schema's documentation.

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 action ('Remove') and resource ('a todo item from the current plan'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'add_todo' and 'update_todo_status' by specifying removal rather than addition or modification. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential deletion operations in other contexts, keeping it at 4 rather than 5.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'update_todo_status' (which might mark as done instead of remove) or 'save_plan' (which might handle broader plan modifications). It lacks explicit when/when-not instructions or prerequisite context, such as requiring an existing todo or plan, leaving usage ambiguous beyond the basic purpose.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a write operation ('save'), but doesn't specify whether this creates a new plan, updates an existing one, requires authentication, has side effects (e.g., overwriting data), or what happens on success/failure. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool, though it could be more front-loaded with key details if expanded. Every word earns its place, but it's slightly under-specified rather than concise.

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 (a mutation operation with no annotations and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'save' entails behaviorally, what the return value might be, or how it interacts with the planning context implied by sibling tools. For a tool that likely modifies state, this lack of detail is inadequate.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'plan' parameter clearly documented as 'The implementation plan text to save'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as format constraints or examples. According to the rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline score is 3 even without param info in the description.

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 the action ('save') and the resource ('current implementation plan'), which provides a basic understanding of the tool's function. However, it's somewhat vague about what constitutes 'current' and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'start_planning' or 'add_todo', which might involve plan-related operations. It avoids being a tautology or misleading, but lacks specificity.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., whether a plan must be started first), exclusions, or relationships with sibling tools like 'start_planning' or 'add_todo'. This leaves the agent with no context for tool selection beyond the basic purpose.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Start a new planning session') but doesn't explain what this entails—such as whether it creates a persistent session, requires authentication, has side effects, or returns any data. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to understand at a glance. Every part of the sentence earns its place by conveying essential information.

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 (initiating a session), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what happens after starting the session, what data is returned, or how it interacts with sibling tools like 'save_plan'. For a tool with these gaps, more context is needed to be fully helpful.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the single parameter 'goal' with its type and description. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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 verb ('Start') and resource ('a new planning session') with the specific purpose of establishing a goal. It distinguishes from siblings like 'add_todo' or 'save_plan' by focusing on session initiation rather than task management or persistence. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential overlapping tools, keeping it at a 4 instead of 5.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'save_plan' or 'add_todo', nor does it mention prerequisites or context for starting a planning session. It lacks explicit when/when-not instructions or named alternatives, leaving usage unclear beyond the basic purpose.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states this is an update operation, implying mutation, but doesn't address permissions, side effects, error conditions, or response format. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple update operation and front-loads the essential information.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what happens after the update (e.g., success confirmation, error responses), nor does it cover behavioral aspects like permissions or side effects, leaving the agent with critical gaps.

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%, with both parameters clearly documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema (e.g., format constraints or examples). The baseline score of 3 reflects adequate but minimal value addition.

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 verb ('update') and resource ('completion status of a todo item'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from potential sibling operations like 'add_todo' or 'remove_todo' beyond the obvious status update focus, which prevents a perfect score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'add_todo' for creating todos or 'get_todos' for checking status. There's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing todo ID) or contextual constraints, leaving usage entirely implicit.

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