plan_tool_mapping

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Optionally map' implies a non-destructive planning action, but it does not disclose whether the mapping is mutable, reversible, requires session state, or affects other plan elements. The behavioral context is minimal and insufficient for an agent to predict side effects.

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 words. It efficiently communicates the core action in a front-loaded manner. The word 'Optionally' earns its place by signaling the tool's non-mandatory role. It loses one point because it is too terse to satisfy the needs of a complex 8-parameter tool.

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 (8 parameters, no annotations, rich schema with enums and defaults) and the presence of sibling tools, the description is woefully incomplete. It only states the primary purpose and says nothing about the mapping lifecycle, how 'params_json' is used, or how 'is_revision' affects behavior. The output schema may describe returns, but the description does not contextualize the tool's role in the planning 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 fails to explain any of the 8 parameters. The schema has an enum for 'tool' and other fields like 'is_revision' and 'params_json', but their meanings are not clarified. The description adds no value beyond the field names, providing no compensation for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 map one sub-query to a web tool' identifies a specific verb ('map') and resource ('sub-query to a web tool'), making the tool's function clear. It also distinguishes itself from sibling planning tools like 'plan_sub_query' by focusing on the mapping action to a web tool. However, it does not name alternative tools explicitly, so it loses a point for insufficient sibling differentiation.

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 description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'plan_sub_query' or 'web_search'. The word 'Optionally' hints at some flexibility but does not clarify conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use context, leaving the agent uncertain.

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