plan_search_term

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

There are no annotations, so the description must carry the full behavioral disclosure burden. It only mentions 'add one search term' without revealing side effects, mutation behavior, idempotency, or interaction with the existing plan state.

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 single sentence is clear, front-loaded, and contains no fluff. It is appropriately concise in form, though it sacrifices information content 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?

For a tool with 9 parameters, no annotations, and no schema-level descriptions, a one-sentence description is radically incomplete. It omits essential context about how the search term is used, revision behavior, and the overall plan workflow.

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 0% and the description names only 'search term' without mapping it to any of the 9 parameters. It fails to clarify required fields like session_id, round, or purpose.

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 uses the specific verb 'add' and resource 'one search term to a plan', making the core purpose clear. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like plan_sub_query or plan_intent, so it stops short of a 5.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as plan_sub_query, plan_tool_mapping, or web_search. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or contextual cues.

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