generate_implementation_plan

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the disclosure burden. It usefully reveals that the tool returns a 'structured prompt' containing milestones, dependencies, risks, and a definition of done, which is real behavioral value. It says nothing about permissions, side effects, or whether any state is created, leaving gaps.

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 tight sentences with zero filler, front-loading the action and then the return content. Slightly under-elaborated for the number of concerns it could address, but nothing is wasted.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by summarizing the return structure (milestones, dependencies, risks, definition of done), and all four parameters are documented in the schema. The remaining gap is the absence of any usage/disambiguation guidance against the many sibling generators.

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%, so the schema already documents all four parameters (feature, context, constraints, knownUnknowns) with clear descriptions. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb ('Generate') and a distinctive resource ('phased implementation plan for a feature or change'), which separates it from siblings like generate_migration_strategy and recommend_architecture. It does not, however, explicitly route the agent away from any named sibling, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternative tools such as recommend_architecture or generate_adr that also produce planning artifacts. Usage must be inferred entirely from the resource name.

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