plan

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions actions but does not disclose side effects, permissions, or operational details. The purpose is ambiguous between planning and execution.

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 structured with a brief introduction, a list of actions, and parameter details. It is not overly long, but some redundancy exists with sibling tool names.

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 (multiple actions, 4 parameters, output schema, nested objects), the description provides an overview but lacks details on each action's specific behavior and expected output. The agent may need to supplement with additional context.

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 provides parameter meanings beyond the schema (e.g., 'action: Which planning operation to run', 'depth: Depth of analysis (1-5)'). With 0% schema description coverage, this adds significant value.

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 states it is a 'Forward-looking work setup' and lists actions, but it's unclear whether it's a dispatcher for those actions or a high-level planning tool. The presence of sibling tools with the same action names (e.g., set_goal, check_goals) causes confusion.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs the individual action tools. The agent is left to infer from the description and sibling context.

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