content_generate_plan

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose all behavioral traits. It mentions routing and scope but omits side effects, idempotency, permissions, or what happens when inputs are invalid. It does not explain the response format despite an existing output schema.

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 relatively short (5 lines) with a clear structure: statement of purpose, routing context, then Args section. However, it could be more front-loaded and avoid the docstring-style 'Args:' block if not needed.

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?

Considering the complexity (domain agent action) and existence of output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers the basics but lacks details on plan generation behavior, error cases, or integration with other tools.

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 description adds meaning for both parameters: message as 'free-text objective' and inputs as 'optional JSON string of structured inputs'. Given 0% schema coverage, this is helpful but could be more precise about expected JSON structure.

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 it runs the 'generate_plan' action for the content domain agent. It identifies the verb (run) and resource (content domain agent action). However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like content_generate_content or content_chat, which share similar purpose scope.

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 explains the routing and authentication context but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus other content tools. It lacks when-not-to-use or alternative recommendations, leaving the agent to infer appropriate usage.

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