wm_plan

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states 'CEM Planning' with no disclosure of side effects, whether it modifies state, requires permissions, or has side effects. The description gives no behavioral context beyond the tool name itself.

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 noun phrase, which is compact but under-specified. It is not a complete sentence and provides minimal information, making it closer to under-specification than effective conciseness. It lacks any structural detail that would help an agent parse the tool's purpose.

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 and only a terse description, the tool is grossly incomplete. There is no mention of return values, the planning process, how the plan is used, or any constraints. For a tool with nested objects and a complex domain (CEM planning), this description is far from sufficient.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter information, but the schema already documents 'goal' (target state) and 'horizon' (planning steps). The nested structure of 'goal' is adequately described in the schema, so no gap exists.

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 using the CEM method for spike injection, which is more specific than a tautology. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'generate' or 'compute', and the resource ('spike injection') is somewhat clear. It distinguishes somewhat from sibling 'inject_spikes' (actual injection vs. planning) but not explicitly.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, when planning is appropriate, or how it compares to sibling tools like inject_spikes, wm_predict, or simulation_control. This is a complete absence of usage guidance.

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