port_project_plan

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Evidence-driven' hints at sourcing but does not say whether the tool reads analysis artifacts, writes files or state, requires prior graph/repo analysis, or is idempotent. The gate list conveys plan structure only, not side effects or prerequisites.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is tight, but the brevity edges into under-specification rather than earning every word through usefulness.

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?

No output schema, no annotations, and two wholly undocumented parameters leave the agent guessing at the return shape and preconditions. For a tool that appears to orchestrate a multi-phase porting plan, the description is far too thin to call correctly without trial and error.

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% and the description never mentions sourcePlatform or targetPlatform. The enums make the value space self-evident, but nothing clarifies whether the two must differ, which direction the plan is built for, or what happens if source equals target.

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 gives a specific verb ('Build') and resource ('porting plan') scoped to N64/PS2, and names the plan's dimensions (ISA, ABI, runtime, asset, validation gates). That is enough to distinguish it from siblings like port_validate_translation or port_status, though it never says what the plan actually is (document? graph entries?) or how it relates to port_start.

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?

No when-to-use guidance and no alternatives named, despite an obvious cluster of adjacent tools (port_start, project_autopilot, project_intake, binary_translate). The agent must infer that this is the planning phase that precedes actual translation work.

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