plan-reviewer

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

The description states it 'verifies' and 'validates' a plan, which is consistent with the readOnlyHint annotation. The description does not add behavioral details beyond what the annotation provides (e.g., no mention of output format or side effects), so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate given annotation coverage.

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 two sentences long, directly stating the tool's purpose and recommended usage. Every word adds value, with no redundancy or filler. It is efficiently front-loaded with the core function.

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 the tool's complexity (6 parameters, no output schema), the description lacks essential context: it does not describe what the tool returns (e.g., a review report, issues list), nor does it explain any parameters. This leaves an agent with significant gaps in understanding how to invoke the tool correctly.

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 input schema has 6 parameters with 0% schema description coverage, meaning the description must compensate. However, the description does not explain any parameter, such as 'prompt' (required), 'expert', 'files', etc. Without this, an agent has no guidance on parameter usage, resulting in a low score.

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 it is a 'work-plan reviewer' that 'verifies a plan is executable' and 'validate[s] an implementation plan for clarity, completeness, and gaps'. This specifies the verb (validate/review) and resource (implementation plan), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'code-reviewer' or 'architect'.

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 says 'Use to validate an implementation plan... before starting significant work', which provides clear context for when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or suggest alternatives, but the context is strong enough for an agent to decide.

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