coss_plan

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

No annotations exist, so description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool returns ranked recommendations with install commands and base project setup. However, it does not detail any behavioral traits like idempotency, data sources, or whether it modifies state. Still, the core behavior is clearly described, earning a 4.

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, no wasted words. Front-loaded with the main action and result. Every sentence adds essential information.

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 only 2 params, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is remarkably complete. It explains what the tool returns, the order, and how to sequence with sibling tools.

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 coverage is 100%. The description adds meaning by framing 'task' as a natural-language description and noting that results are ranked and include install commands. For 'limit', it does not repeat the default but the context is clear. Overall, description adds value beyond the schema.

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 the tool's purpose: given a natural-language description, it returns recommended UI components (ranked with install commands) plus base project setup. It distinguishes from sibling tools by explicitly saying 'call this first, then coss_get_component'.

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 explicit usage guidance: 'The token-efficient starting point — call this first, then coss_get_component for the ones you'll build with.' This tells when to use this tool and when to use the alternative sibling.

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