plan_task

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

With no annotations, the description sufficiently discloses the tool's non-destructive nature (no execution or file modification), its panel precedence logic (planner_panel → consult_panel → review panel), and the single-model fallback strategy without multi-model debate. This gives the agent a clear behavioral model.

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 somewhat verbose (multiple sentences explaining fallback logic) but is front-loaded with the core purpose. Some sentences could be condensed without losing meaning. Adequate but not maximally concise.

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 complexity (10 parameters, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It provides no parameter details, no explanation of return format or structure, and no mention of success criteria or constraints. The behavioral details help, but significant gaps remain.

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%, meaning the input schema provides no parameter descriptions. The tool description does not explain any of the 10 parameters (e.g., goal, files, panel, effort, context, constraints, etc.). The agent has no semantic guidance beyond parameter names, which is insufficient for correct invocation.

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 purpose: breaking goals into executable and reviewable plans, returning structured plans without executing commands or modifying files. It distinguishes from siblings like review_plan and suggest_workflow by focusing on plan creation rather than review or workflow suggestion.

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 explains the tool's fallback behavior across panels but does not explicitly specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like consult_problem or suggest_workflow. The guidance is implicit from the name and purpose, but no direct comparisons or exclusions are provided.

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