mission_plan

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It explicitly discloses that the tool does not implement anything, that it presents the plan for approval, and that the planner may return an empty plan when the goal is too vague. This is good disclosure, though it omits any permission or side-effect details.

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 primary behavior and approval gating are front-loaded in the first sentence. The JSON examples are long but necessary given the 0% schema coverage, and each paragraph contributes distinct information. Slightly verbose, but efficiently organized.

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?

The description covers the core workflow, the approval gate, recovery from empty plans, and the shape of optional decomposition inputs. Since an output schema exists, return-value details are not needed. Minor gaps remain around repo/mission_id semantics and how this relates to mission_replan, but the description is largely complete for invocation.

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%, so the description must compensate. It provides valuable JSON examples for features and milestones, including nested field names and dependency structures. It does not explicitly explain the required mission_id or optional repo parameter, but their purpose is reasonably inferable and the most complex parameters are well covered.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Generate the structured dependency-aware plan and present it for approval.' It clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling actions by stating no implementation happens until mission_approve is called.

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 gives concrete usage context: use this to produce an approval-ready plan, and use mission_approve for implementation. It also spells out a fallback for empty planner results (retry or supply own decomposition). It does not exhaustively contrast all sibling tools, but the main routing cues are present.

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