think-about-plan

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

Annotations are empty, so the description must disclose behaviors. It lists what is analyzed (clarity, feasibility, etc.) but does not mention if the tool is read-only, requires authentication, or has side effects. The description provides some behavioral detail but not comprehensive safety/permissions info.

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 two sentences, concise and front-loaded with the action. Every word adds value, with no filler. Could be slightly more structured, but it's efficient.

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 tool has 3 parameters (1 required) and no output schema. The description covers the purpose and analysis areas but does not hint at the output format (e.g., textual feedback, structured report). Adequate but missing return value context.

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 adds context about what the tool does with the 'plan' parameter but does not provide additional meaning beyond the schema for any parameter.

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 provides strategic feedback on plans, analyzing clarity, feasibility, risks, dependencies, and alternatives. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'solve-problem' or 'suggest-alternative', which could overlap.

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 strategic analysis but lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned, which is a gap given the sibling tools.

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