plan_complexity

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool assesses complexity on a 1-3 scale but fails to mention side effects, output format, or whether it modifies state. This is a significant transparency gap for a planning tool with many required parameters.

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 a single, short sentence with no wasted words, which is efficient. However, it is under-specified to the point of being minimally informative, resembling a placeholder rather than a concise yet complete summary.

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 tool with 8 parameters, an output schema, and a role in a planning pipeline, this description is incomplete. It neither explains the tool's purpose in the workflow nor what the output represents. The output schema exists but the description fails to connect the tool's behavior to its inputs and outputs.

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 schema description coverage is only 25%, so the description must compensate for the many undocumented parameters. The description only hints at the 'level' parameter (via the 1-3 scale) and provides no meaning for required fields like estimated_sub_queries, estimated_tool_calls, or justification. This adds almost no semantic value beyond the 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 'Optionally assess search complexity from 1 to 3' identifies a clear action (assess) and resource (search complexity), but it does not explain what the assessment involves or how it differs from sibling planning tools. The word 'Optionally' adds ambiguity about whether this step is required.

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 guidance is given on when to use this tool or when to use alternatives. The description does not mention any context, prerequisites, or comparisons to sibling tools like plan_sub_query or plan_tool_mapping.

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