anjian_capability_plan

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions '根据本机真实工具状态' (based on real local tool state) which suggests introspection, but doesn't disclose side effects, whether it mutates state, reads system tool configurations, or what happens during execution. The behavioral profile is under-specified.

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 is concise and front-loads the main purpose. Every clause contributes meaning, though as noted the meaning is somewhat generic. It is appropriately brief for a single-sentence 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?

Given there's no output schema, no annotations, and a 0% schema description coverage, the description is the only information source, but it's thin. It doesn't clarify what the layered execution plan contains, what 'safe routing' means concretely, how it relates to the assessment workflow, or what the output format looks like. For a tool that generates plans for a security assessment workflow with 14 siblings, this is insufficient.

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 only parameter, assessment_id, has a default of empty string but zero documentation. The description doesn't explain what assessment_id does or whether it's needed. With a single optional parameter and no schema description, the description adds no meaning beyond the raw parameter name.

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 it generates a layered execution plan based on local tool state and explains safe routing for other Claude MCP tools. The verb '生成' (generate) with resource '分层执行计划' (layered execution plan) is reasonably specific, but it doesn't clearly distinguish how this differs from sibling tools like anjian_consolidate or anjian_quick_assess, making the unique function somewhat ambiguous.

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 mentions '说明其他 Claude MCP 的安全路由' (explains safe routing for other Claude MCP tools) which hints at when it might be useful, but there's no explicit guidance on when to call this versus siblings like anjian_quick_assess or anjian_doctor, nor conditions or prerequisites for invocation.

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