wm_plan

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether the tool is read-only, whether it mutates state, what it returns, or what side effects it may have. The phrase 'Planning' alone is insufficient.

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 technically concise but under-specified. It is a single phrase that does not convey enough information to be useful. The lack of structure and detail constitutes under-specification, not effective conciseness.

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 tool with nested objects, two parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description must explain purpose, behavior, and outputs. It only gives a vague title and fails to describe how the goal and horizon parameters relate to the planning process or what the result looks like.

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% (goal and horizon both have descriptions). The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning, but the baseline of 3 applies because the schema already documents the parameters adequately.

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' is a noun phrase that vaguely indicates the tool performs planning for spike injection, but it lacks a clear verb and resource. It does not distinguish the tool from siblings like wm_predict or wm_surprise, and the acronym 'CEM' is unexplained.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of contexts, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage purely from the name and schema.

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