intentPlanner

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

With no annotations, the description must convey behavioral traits. It mentions optional execution but does not disclose side effects, permissions, or the nature of execution—critical for a tool that can modify code. The vagueness of 'optionally execute' leaves significant safety information uncovered.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose. Every word contributes, with no redundant information.

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 that can execute development plans, the description is under-specified. It lacks context about execution consequences, output format, or safety mechanisms. Given no annotations and no output schema, the description alone is insufficient for an agent to fully anticipate behavior.

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?

The input schema already provides complete descriptions for both parameters (request and dryRun), covering 100% of them. The description adds no extra parameter-specific detail, so it neither compensates for gaps nor enhances schema information.

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 the tool's function: parse natural language requests, generate an execution plan, and optionally execute it. This verb-resource combination is specific and distinguishes it from sibling generator tools that focus on specific artifacts.

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 natural language development requests, providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or mention exclusions, lacking direct comparison to sibling tools.

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