plan

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

No annotations, but the description discloses that 'create' involves a structured workflow with HITL via AskUserQuestion, codebase research, and writing plan.md. 'get' provides checkbox-based progress. This is transparent but could mention any side effects or limitations.

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?

Concise with bullet points for actions and a usage note. Slightly verbose in the 'create' description but overall efficient. No wasted sentences.

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 no output schema, the description covers purpose, actions, usage guidelines, and workflow. It is sufficiently complete for an AI agent to use the tool correctly.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions. The description adds context beyond schema by explaining the workflow for each action and auto-detection of session. It enhances understanding of parameters.

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 manages session work plans with two distinct actions (create/get). It specifies the workflow for 'create' (requirements gathering, research, plan.md) and distinguishes from siblings like 'guide' and 'init'.

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?

Explicit guidance provided: 'Optional - skip for simple bug fixes. Use for medium/large tasks that benefit from upfront planning.' This tells when to use and when to skip, with an alternative implied.

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