Generate SDLC Plan from Context

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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds significant behavioral context: it is template-based with no LLM call, reads repo labels to avoid inventing non-existent ones, and returns confidence/needsClarification for inferred workType. This exceeds what annotations provide.

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 well-structured with clear sections (purpose, args, return). It is fairly concise but includes necessary details. Minor redundancy exists (e.g., workType enum list repeated), but overall it is efficient and front-loaded with key 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 complexity (6 parameters, reusable plan generation) and the presence of an output schema, the description is thorough. It explains the phase-by-phase output, confidence/needsClarification, and links to create_issue_set. No gaps remain for typical use.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds extra meaning by explaining fallback behavior for owner/repo, the inference logic for workType, and the need to check confidence/needsClarification. This improves usability beyond the raw schema.

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 generates a structured Agentic SDLC plan from a goal and repo context. It specifies the verb 'generate' and the resource 'plan', and differentiates from sibling tools by emphasizing it produces a plan tailored to workType, unlike repo_context or create_issue_set.

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 implies when to use the tool (e.g., for planning with a goal and repo context) and explains workType inference behavior. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or contrast with alternatives like prepare_work_item, which could clarify boundaries.

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