plan_git_backfill

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does well: it discloses that Plane is not changed, explains the grouping and splitting algorithm, notes business-day date adjustment, and mentions the plan_id handoff. It does not cover permissions, filesystem access expectations, or error behavior, but the output schema covers return values.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds useful information. The grouping sentence is dense but necessary to explain how the plan is produced.

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 complex planning tool with an output schema, the description covers the key workflow, non-mutating behavior, grouping logic, and next step well enough. It is still incomplete on several input parameters and prerequisites, but the core planning behavior is understandable.

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 0% across 8 parameters, so the description must compensate. It explains module_map and max_gap_days meaningfully, but leaves since, until, author, project_id, include_uncommitted, and even repo_path largely undocumented, which is a significant gap for correct invocation.

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 and resource: reading local git history and proposing Plane work items. It also clearly scopes the operation as non-mutating ('without changing Plane') and names the follow-up sibling apply_git_backfill, so an agent can distinguish it from the apply tool.

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 explicitly describes the workflow: generate proposed items, review them with the user, then call apply_git_backfill with the returned plan_id. This effectively defines when to use this planning tool versus the applying sibling.

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