plan_task

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions establishing goals but does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether the tool modifies state, requires authentication, or has side effects (e.g., creating a plan object). The return value is not mentioned.

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 concise sentence in Chinese, covering purpose and optional reference. It is appropriately front-loaded and efficient, though slightly dense due to missing punctuation.

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?

Given no output schema and a complex domain (task planning), the description should explain what the tool returns or how it affects state. It lacks information on prerequisites, success criteria format, or the planning output, making it incomplete for agent selection.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds some context (e.g., '參考現有任務進行延續規劃' for `existingTasksReference`), but does not significantly extend beyond the schema descriptions.

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 clearly states it initializes and plans task flow, establishes goals and success criteria, and allows referencing existing tasks. This differentiates it from sibling tools like `execute_task` or `analyze_task`, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 implies usage for initial planning by mentioning '初始化' and '延續規劃', but does not explicitly state when to use vs. alternatives like `split_tasks` or `update_task`. No 'when not to use' guidance is provided.

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