plan_intent

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It only mentions starting or revising a plan, but does not explain what 'revise' entails, side effects, persistence, or any other operational behavior. The description is too vague to be transparent.

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 concise sentence with no redundant content. It is appropriately compact, though it sacrifices some useful context for brevity.

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?

Despite having 11 parameters and a complex search-planning workflow, the description is minimal and does not explain how this tool fits into the overall process, what a 'structured search plan' is, or when it is appropriate to start versus revise. The output schema exists but does not compensate for the missing workflow 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already thoroughly documents all 11 parameters. The description adds nothing beyond the schema, meeting the baseline expectation.

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 verb+resource: 'start or revise a structured search plan.' It distinguishes from sibling tools like plan_search_term and plan_sub_query, which handle more granular components of the search plan.

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 word 'Optionally' implies the tool is not always needed, but the description provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus the alternatives (e.g., plan_search_term, plan_execution). There are no stated conditions or exclusions.

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