get_planning_steps

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful behavioral fact that the tool returns a sequence of steps the agent must then execute, rather than a plan itself. It does not describe how many steps, in what format, or whether the steps depend on profile state, so it adds moderate context only.

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?

It is a single sentence with no filler, and the 'call it first' instruction sits before the 'then follow its steps' consequence, which is the right order for an agent reading it as an instruction. The opening clause about the prompt carve-out is slightly convoluted but carries real routing information.

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 zero-parameter tool with annotations and no output schema, the description covers the trigger and the meta-instruction to follow the returned steps. What it lacks is any hint about the shape of the returned steps or what to do if the steps reference other tools like get_program_requirements or audit_progress, which an agent would need to chain 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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly implies the tool is context-free and routes on the caller's prompt rather than on arguments.

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 identifies the tool as the 'Plan my degree workflow' whose output is a set of steps to follow, which tells an agent what it gets back rather than what it mutates. It is distinguishable from siblings like build_plan or check_plan by being a workflow dispatch entry point, though it never uses an explicit verb like 'returns the ordered steps for...'.

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 gives explicit trigger conditions: call it first when a student asks to plan their degree, what's left, or when they'll graduate, and only when the client didn't start from the plan_my_degree prompt. That is strong when-to-use guidance. It stops short of naming alternatives like build_plan or check_plan and saying when those should be preferred instead.

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