plan_with_codex

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 discloses the tool 'returns and saves the plan', indicating persistence. However, it does not detail where the plan is saved, side effects on the workspace, permissions needed, or rate limits. The behavioral information is adequate but somewhat vague.

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 extremely concise at two sentences. It front-loads the core action ('Ask Codex to create an implementation plan') and adds a key behavioral detail ('returns and saves the plan'). No extraneous words or repetition.

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 an output schema, the description could elaborate on what the plan contains (e.g., steps, structure) to help the agent anticipate results. While the tool is moderately complex with 5 parameters, the description provides only minimal context on the output format. It is sufficient but not fully complete.

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 100%, so the input schema already documents all five parameters with basic descriptions. The tool description does not add any extra meaning or usage guidance for the parameters beyond what the schema provides. Hence, baseline score of 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?

The description clearly states the tool creates an implementation plan and returns/saves it. The verb 'Ask Codex to create' and noun 'implementation plan' provide a specific purpose. However, the phrase 'Superpowers-style' is somewhat jargon-like and may not be universally understood, slightly reducing clarity. It distinguishes from sibling tools focused on review or debugging.

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 mentions 'before Gemini CLI edits code', indicating when to use the tool (pre-editing). No explicit when-not-to-use guidance or alternatives are listed. The usage is implied but clear enough for an agent to infer it should be called before code modifications, not for reviews or verification.

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