agy_plan

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the critical non-modifying behavior and read-only inspection. It does not cover other aspects like output format or resource usage, but for a planning tool the safety guarantee is the primary trait and is well-stated.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the mode, the action, and the key constraint. No filler or redundant details; every word earns its place.

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 7 parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not mention what the plan output looks like (e.g., text format, file path) or any prerequisites. While the schema covers parameter details, the lack of return-value guidance leaves the agent guessing about the result.

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 all parameters are already documented. The description adds no additional meaning to the parameters, such as how they interact or examples. It sticks to the high-level purpose, which is adequate but not value-added beyond the schema.

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 action ('invoke Antigravity in planning mode'), the resource (codebase inspection), and the output (a plan). The phrase 'without modifying any files' distinguishes it from execution tools like agy_task, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 when to use it (when a plan is needed before implementation) and its non-destructive nature, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it. The planning-mode phrasing and the no-file-modification guarantee provide clear context, though explicit exclusions are absent.

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