gemini-plan

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It clearly states the tool generates blueprints, dependency analysis, and risk assessments without modifying code, which sets accurate expectations. It doesn't disclose response format details, but for a planner tool this is reasonable.

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?

Two sentences with zero waste. Front-loaded with the tool's identity and purpose, then a clear boundary statement. The word count is appropriate for the tool's complexity.

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 planner tool with a fully documented schema and no side effects, the description is complete enough. It lacks explicit return format or output examples, but given the absence of an output schema and the role of a planner, the description covers the essential 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 documents all 6 parameters. The description adds meaningful context about 'without modifying code' and 'reasoning effort' semantics via the description text, going slightly beyond the schema's structural definitions.

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 states a specific verb ('planner'), resource ('Architectural and implementation planner'), and explicitly distinguishes itself from code modification ('without modifying code'). This clearly differentiates it from siblings like ask-gemini, brainstorm, and gemini-doctor.

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 implies usage for architectural tasks, complex features, or refactoring goals via the parameter schema, and the 'without modifying code' phrase signals when not to use it. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives, but the sibling list and planner framing provide enough context.

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