plan_capabilities_for_goal

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the core behavior (planning and returning tool IDs) but does not state whether the operation is read-only, whether prior discovery is required, or what happens when no tools are found. This is a moderate gap.

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 with a front-loaded verb and resource, conveying purpose and output without any wasted words. It is efficiently structured.

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 adequately covers the basic purpose and return value, but lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., needing discover_tools first), the meaning of 'code-graph suggestions', and any side effects. With no annotations and no output schema, more detail would be beneficial.

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 descriptions cover all 3 parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds context about using discovered resources but does not explain how 'project' or 'preferredTags' influence planning beyond what the schema already states.

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 uses the specific verb 'Plan' with the resource 'capabilities' and clearly states the input source ('discovered tools and code-graph suggestions') and output ('planned tool IDs to invoke'). This distinguishes it from siblings like discover_tools and invoke_planned_tool.

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 a workflow position: planning happens after discovery ('discovered tools') and before invocation ('to invoke'). It does not explicitly exclude alternatives or state 'when not to use', but the sibling tool names and context make the intended usage clear.

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