gta-money-plan

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool builds a ranked, time-boxed action list and mixes income sources, but it does not reveal whether the tool has side effects (e.g., modifying game state), requires authentication, or has rate limits. The term 'planner' suggests read-only, but this is not explicit.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and every sentence adds value. No wasted words. Excellent structure for quick understanding.

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 no output schema, the description explains the return as a ranked, time-boxed action list. It covers inputs and data sources (bonuses, business state, reset urgency). It is mostly complete for a planning tool, though it could mention prerequisites (e.g., set business state beforehand) or error handling.

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 only 33% (only sessionMinutes has a description). The description adds context for the goal parameter by listing enum values in prose ('balanced', 'max-cash', etc.) and explains how it combines bonuses and business state. However, the solo parameter is not explained. Overall, the description adds some meaning beyond schema but does not fully compensate for the low 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 clearly states a specific verb and resource ('build a ranked, time-boxed action list') and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like gta-best-methods and gta-daily-checklist by being 'the flagship planner'. It also specifies the inputs (session length and goal) and the output (action list mixing passive and active earners).

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 when you have a session length and goal, but it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives among the many sibling tools. It provides clear context but lacks exclusions or comparative guidance.

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