onboarding_plan

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It clearly disclaims code generation and file modification, stating it only clarifies the decision point. This is strong transparency for a read-only guidance tool, though it could add details like idempotency or whether it consults external state.

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 front-loaded with a clear one-sentence purpose, followed by usage and a standard note. Every section adds value, though the three-part structure is slightly longer than necessary for a one-parameter tool.

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 simplicity, an output schema exists so return values need not be explained. The description covers purpose, usage, non-destructive behavior, and a recommended value. The only minor gap is the incomplete explanation of the step_count parameter and its relationship to the default.

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%, so the description must compensate. It discusses step-count selection and provides a typical value (~5), which adds meaning beyond the bare integer default of 12. However, it never explicitly maps the step_count parameter or its expected range, leaving some ambiguity about the input's exact role.

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 states a specific verb and resource: it returns guidance for onboarding step-count selection. It also adds a negative scope (does not generate code, does not modify files), which helps distinguish it from scaffolding tools. However, it does not explicitly name sibling tools or contrast alternatives, so it falls short of a 5.

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 gives explicit when-to-use instructions: call this tool to ask the user how many onboarding steps they want, show the returned guidance, and let them choose. It also explains the downstream workflow and provides a standard (~5 steps) to guide the choice. Usage is unambiguous.

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