init_plan

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

The description states 'Initialize revision-bound context metadata', which implies a write operation, but annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. This creates a potential contradiction regarding side effects. The description does not clarify whether the tool modifies document state or creates in-memory context.

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 redundancy. However, it sacrifices completeness 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?

Given the tool's complexity (initializing multi-agent planning context) and lack of output schema, the description is too minimal. It omits return behavior, prerequisites, and effects, making it insufficient for an agent to use effectively.

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?

Only 33% of parameters have schema descriptions (file_path has one). The tool description does not explain 'plan_name' or 'orchestrator_id', leaving their meaning ambiguous. It fails to compensate for low schema coverage.

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 a specific verb 'Initialize' and refers to 'revision-bound context metadata' for 'coordinated multi-agent planning', clearly distinguishing it from siblings like 'apply_plan' or 'merge_plans'. However, the term 'revision-bound' may be unclear without domain context.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'apply_plan' or 'merge_plans'. No prerequisites or exclusion conditions are mentioned.

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