wm_plan

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden but discloses nothing about side effects, safety, computational cost, or return behavior. It does not state whether planning is read-only or if it requires any system state. This is a complete lack of behavioral 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 extremely brief (five words) and avoids verbosity, but it is under-specified rather than effectively concise. It front-loads the key concept but omits necessary context, making it less useful than a fully concise description.

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?

This tool has a nested goal object, no annotations, and no output schema. The description provides no information about return values, workflow steps, or how to interpret the plan. For a complex planning tool, this is severely incomplete.

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 100%, so the schema documents each parameter (goal and horizon) with basic descriptions. The tool description adds little semantic value: it implies the goal relates to spike injection optimality but does not clarify how acmTarget or firingRateTarget are used in planning. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'CEM Planning for Optimal Spike Injection' indicates the tool performs planning via CEM for spike injection, which distinguishes it from execution tools like inject_spikes. However, it lacks a clear verb structure and does not specify what the plan looks like or how it relates to the goal parameters, so purpose is only broadly clear.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, whether it should be used before injection, or exclusions (e.g., 'use inject_spikes for actual injection'). The description is purely a label with no usage context.

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