plan

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses only that the operation is read-only and produces a file-by-file plan; it says nothing about whether an agent/model is invoked (the agent, model, effort params strongly suggest an LLM run with cost and latency), whether a session is created or reused, or what the response looks like.

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 with zero padding; the core artifact and its read-only nature appear immediately. It is efficient but so short that it omits rather than wastes, so it does not reach a 5.

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?

For a seven-parameter tool that appears to orchestrate an agent run with session grouping and context-run chaining, one sentence with no annotations and no output schema leaves major gaps. An agent cannot tell how session or context_runs affect behavior, nor what the plan output consists of.

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 57%, leaving agent, model, effort, and cwd undocumented in structured fields, and the description adds no meaning for any of the seven parameters. The one substantive hint — that task should include answers to open questions — comes from the schema, not the description, so it gets no credit here.

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?

States a specific verb and artifact: 'Write a file-by-file implementation plan', which tells an agent exactly what it gets back. The '(read-only)' qualifier adds a useful scope note. It does not differentiate from siblings such as explain, think, or review, which could plausibly produce overlapping analysis.

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?

There is no guidance on when to choose this over explain, think, or run, nor any statement of prerequisites or expected follow-up (e.g., feed the plan into execute). 'Read-only' implies it is a safe analysis step but the agent must infer when it applies.

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