Plan a task

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

Annotations are all false, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It adds the clean-worktree precondition but does not explain side effects (e.g., where the plan is stored), validation behavior, or return output. This is partial transparency.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the action and object, includes key constraints (ordered, 2-4 stages, clean worktree), and contains no filler.

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, no parameter documentation, and only a terse description, the agent lacks essential context about how to construct stages, what the plan is used for, or how it relates to sibling tools. The workflow context is not explained, leaving significant gaps for a tool with nested parameters.

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 does not explain what the top-level 'description' parameter means or what the stage object fields (e.g., 'files') represent. The term 'commit plan' hints at context, but the description leaves too much to inference for a nested structure.

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 states a specific action ('Create'), a concrete resource ('ordered 2-4 stage commit plan'), and a condition ('from a clean Git worktree'). This clearly differentiates plan_task from siblings like commit_stage and task_status by focusing on the planning phase.

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 provides a clear prerequisite ('clean Git worktree') and scope ('2-4 stage'), which imply usage during initial planning. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use or name alternatives, stopping short of full usage guidance.

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