plan-reviewer

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

Annotations already indicate read-only and non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by disclosing that it fans out to a provider panel, requires keys/CLI, has rate limits, and returns a JSON envelope with results. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 relatively concise (2 sentences plus a brief return format note). It front-loads the purpose and usage. The technical details about fan-out and return envelope could be slightly more structured but do not hinder readability.

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 mentions the return format as 'text-wrapped JSON envelope { results[] }', which is helpful. However, it lacks details on error handling, provider configuration, and edge cases. Given the tool's complexity (fan-out, multiple providers), more completeness would be beneficial.

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 coverage is 100% with clear parameter descriptions. The description adds contextual meaning, such as the 'expert' parameter being ignored on named expert tools and the persona being advisory. This supplements the schema without redundancy.

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 identifies the tool as a plan reviewer that validates implementation plans before building. It uses specific verbs ('verifies', 'validate') and distinguishes itself from siblings like 'architect' or 'code-reviewer' by focusing on plan review before 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 advises using the tool 'to validate an implementation plan before starting significant work', providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools for other phases of the development process.

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