plan_workflow

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

No annotations are provided, but the description carries the burden well. It explicitly states that the tool only suggests skills and returns a list, while the actual orchestration/execution order is left to the agent. This sets clear expectations about the tool's advisory nature and lack of 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 two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, and every word earns its place. It avoids redundancy and is easy to parse.

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 simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description is complete. It covers the input, output, and the agent's responsibility for orchestration, giving enough context for correct selection and invocation without extra fluff.

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% and the description's 'task_description' aligns with the schema's 'Full description of the task to accomplish'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already captures, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('suggest') and resource ('relevant skills') to state its function clearly. It distinguishes from sibling tools (search_skills, read_skill) by focusing on combining skills for a task rather than searching or reading individual skills.

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?

It clearly implies when to use: given a task description, to get skill recommendations. It also clarifies the agent retains control over orchestration and execution order, which is important guidance. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternative tools for specific skill lookup.

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