review_plan

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure, yet it says nothing about side effects, permissions, rate limits, cost, or any other behavioral traits beyond the basic action.

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 short (two sentences) and front-loaded with the main action. No words are wasted, but it could be expanded slightly to cover more essentials without losing conciseness.

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 9 parameters and no output schema, the description is extremely incomplete. It fails to explain how parameters are used, what the output looks like, or any contextual details necessary for proper invocation.

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%, and the description adds no meaning to any of the 9 parameters. It does not explain what panel, effort, adapter, dimensions, max_cost_usd, extra_context, output_format, or retrieve_top_k represent, leaving the agent guessing.

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 it reviews plans (implementation plans) in 'design-question mode' and equates it to review_document with document_type='markdown'. The verb and resource are specific, and the equivalence to a sibling tool is mentioned, though it does not fully differentiate itself.

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 reviewing plans as markdown documents via the equivalence statement, but it provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it mention alternatives beyond the implied sibling.

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