Generate SDLC Plan from Context

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint as true, and destructiveHint false. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: it is template-based and requires no LLM call, and reads basic repo metadata and label lists. This extra transparency justifies a score above baseline.

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 concise (~150 words), well-structured with clear purpose, behavioral notes, and parameter details. No redundant sentences; every sentence adds value.

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 and the presence of an output schema (mentioned but not shown), the description sufficiently explains what the tool returns: phase-by-phase plan, workType/confidence/reasoning/needsClarification, and issueDrafts. Combined with annotations, no gaps remain.

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 description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining workType inference behavior and suggesting post-check steps. It also clarifies that goal is required and constraints/acceptanceCriteria are optional with added context.

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 generates a structured Agentic SDLC plan from a goal and repo context. It specifies the phases (Plan->Create->Test->Review->Optimize->Secure) and relates to workType, effectively distinguishing it from siblings like create_issue_set or prepare_work_item.

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?

It explains when to use the tool (to generate a plan from a goal and context) and provides guidance on workType inference ('if omitted, infer... check confidence/needsClarification'). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternative tools, leaving some room for ambiguity.

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