plan_critique

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden, and it does disclose 'Read-only' and that it operates before code is written. However it omits cost/latency behavior, caching semantics, and what the critique actually returns; the cost tradeoffs are relegated entirely to the tier parameter's schema text rather than the description itself.

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?

Two tight sentences with zero waste: the scope of the critique is front-loaded, followed immediately by the usage trigger and a one-word safety disclosure. Every fragment earns its place.

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 12-parameter tool with full schema coverage and no annotations, the description supplies purpose, scope, usage condition, and the critical read-only guarantee. The notable gap is that, with no output schema, it never hints at what the critique returns (format, structure, actionable findings).

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 already documents all 12 parameters (tier, workdir, effort, etc.). The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (critique) and resource (an implementation plan) and enumerates the kinds of issues it surfaces (wrong assumptions, missing steps, simpler paths, production risks). The phrase 'before any code is written' implicitly distinguishes it from the review siblings, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Gives a concrete trigger: 'Use on any task that touches more than one file.' That is a clear condition for invocation. It stops short of naming alternatives (e.g. codex_review for written code) or stating when NOT to use it, so it is not a full 5.

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