Plan Legacy TD Patch Dict

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false. The description adds no further behavioral details beyond legacy status and output shape, which is consistent. With annotations present, the bar is lower; 3 is appropriate.

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 extremely concise, consisting of two sentences that front-load the key information (legacy status, alternative tools, basics of function) with no unnecessary words.

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 the tool's deprecated status, the description adequately covers its purpose, output shape, and replacement. It is sufficient for a legacy tool with full parameter descriptions and annotations, though it assumes familiarity with 'patch dict shape'.

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 the baseline is 3. The description does not add any parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 identifies the tool as a legacy compatibility planner that returns a pre-v1.5 patch dict shape, explicitly distinguishing it from sibling tools td_brain_plan and td_brain_execute which are recommended for new work.

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 provides explicit guidance: it is for legacy compatibility only, and for new work the user should prefer td_brain_plan followed by td_brain_execute. It also notes slated removal in v3.0.

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