make_plan

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool does not execute, returns full task bodies for review, and is repo-aware. It doesn't mention side effects like storage or persistence, but the lack of execution implies a read-only behavior. Overall, key behavioral traits are clearly stated.

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 compact two-sentence structure that leads with the primary action and return value, then provides a critical behavioral note and a pointer to the follow-up tool. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundancy.

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?

The description covers the core purpose, return type, and follow-up step, but lacks details on the exact format of the 'full task bodies' or any prerequisites like having started the project first. Given siblings like start_project and approve_plan, the tool's place in the workflow is partly implied but not fully specified. The agent could call it in the wrong order if the description mentioned prerequisites.

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?

The schema has zero description coverage, so the description must compensate. While the sole parameter 'project_id' is named clearly, the description does not explicitly link it to the plan generation or the repo context. The parenthetical 'repo-aware' hints at the connection but does not clarify the role of the ID. The agent must infer that project_id selects the project, which could lead to confusion.

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 generates a bite-sized red/green TDD plan and is repo-aware. It explicitly mentions returning full task bodies for review, and the verb 'Generate' is specific. It distinguishes itself from sibling approve_plan by stating it does not start execution.

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 explicitly tells the agent not to start execution and instructs to call approve_plan after user sign-off. This clearly identifies when to use this tool versus its main sibling, leaving no ambiguity about the workflow.

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